Moral GPS: A Positive Ethic For Our Multicultural World

Moral GPS
Moral GPS
A Positive Ethic for
Our Multicultural
World
Len Bowman, Ph.D.
2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman
Moral GPS
2
MENU
flow chart
Moral GPS
A Positive Ethic for Our Multicultural World
By Len Bowman, Ph.D.
A discernment and decision process in five steps

Moral GPS has two main parts:
The GPS
The Operators Manual
Before you operate The GPS, you may want to consult the
Operating Instructions and Introduction
in the Operators Manual
Click here to go to the Operators Manual
Click here to start The GPS
Moral GPS
www.moralgps.com
(TM)
Moral GPS
Moral GPS
by
Len Bowman, Ph.D.
The GPS
START
Consult the Operator's Manual, too.

The Moral GPS has an onboard glossary. Brief definitions of highlighted words pop up
when the cursor touches the start of the highlighed word. Highlighted words are also linked to
their full definitions in the Glossary or to that part of the Moral GPS where the term is discussed.
(Ordinarily the definition will appear at the top of the linked page, sometimes near the bottom.)
REMEMBER WHERE YOU ARE in the Moral GPS; use the Menu to return to your point of departure.
*Asterisks mark terms that are used in a special way in the Moral GPS; the definitions apply only here.
Moral GPS
WARNING
Do not attempt to enter route information
or adjust this device while driving.
Failure to pay full attention
to all circumstances affecting your decisions
could result in serious moral mishaps,
injury to your ability to work with others,
or disruption of your plans and hopes.
If you need to adjust your route,
Stop and Think.
You assume total responsibility and risk
in using this device.
CLICK ON LINKS TO OPERATE GPS
MENU
flow chart
OK
ADVISORY: Keep your Moral GPS turned on at all times. Always be ready
for unexpected road hazards, congestion and traffic obstructions so that
you can avoid a crash.
Moral GPS
5
START / MENU / Operators Manual
go to Flow Chart
First Step: Acquiring Satellites

Where Are We?
The moral life is like going on a journey, a journey shared with everyone else. Imagine moral
life as traveling with others on a Moral Highway. To travel safely, you need your Moral GPS.
The first step is a step back, to gain a little distance from your preoccupations, to think about
who you are, where you fit into the world, and how the Moral Highway works.
Second Step: Where To?

Set Goals
The second step is to figure out where you want to go. To set your Moral GPS for a particular
trip, first enter your life goals so this trip doesnt take you off your life route. Be aware of goals
for all people, too, so that your travel on the Moral Highway is safe and harmonious.
Third Step: Choose Route

Check Main Routes and Alternate Routes
The Moral Highway has some well-traveled routes: values and theories that support moral
decisions. The Moral GPS shows how to use these routes carefully and wisely.
Fourth Step: GO!

Make a Decision!
Deciding is not as simple as it looks. You must watch whats happening around you. You
must maneuver safely through dilemmas in order to foster consensus. Then you decide.
Fifth Step: Arriving at Destination

Are We There Yet?
Have you accomplished the goal that you aimed for? You owe good reasons for your decision
to people affected by it. You should also ask yourself, how has this decision affected me?
Supplement:
Driving Practice and Trip Tips for Congested Areas
Rest Area
Tourist Info * Caf * My GPS
Moral GPS
First Step: Acquiring Satellites

START
Where Are We?
MENU
Operators Manual
Get ready to drive on the Moral Highway! Now you begin a discernment / decision process
with your Moral GPS. That process cant happen in a vacuum. You are who you are, and you
live in the world as it is. Therefore the first step in the process is to locate yourself. Step back,
gain a little distance from your immediate preoccupations. Think about who you are, where
you fit into the world, and how the Moral Highway works. Thats why your Moral GPS asks
you to look at yourself as if from a satellite overhead: an eye in the sky.
Of course you can see the road in front of you as you drive.
But thats only a limited view of where you are. The GPS helps
you see where you are in relation to all that is around you. It
helps you see where youre coming from, where others are
coming from, and where theyre headed.
A. Satellites View
Eye in the Sky
1. YOU ARE HERE!
Mapping Your Moral Location
2. CHECK THE MIRROR
Where are YOU coming from?
3. RULES OF THE ROAD
How You Talk about Moral Issues.
4. CAREFUL!
Youre Not the Only One on the Road
5. DRIVE WITH CONFIDENCE
Caution with Trust
B. Other Drivers
Where Are Others Coming From?
C. Road Hazards
Moral Dilemmas, Controversies, and Dangerous Intersections
Moral GPS
7
START / MENU
REST AREA
Acquiring Satellites
Operators Manual
1. YOU ARE HERE!

Mapping Your Moral Location
No, YOU arent the eye in the sky, detached
and above everything. Thats the GPS satellite.
YOU find yourself in a particular place and a
particular time, like it or not. Deal with it.
You are here.
Okay, so wheres here?

Two answers to that:
(zoom in)
Youre in the particular place where you happen to be now.

Whats that mean?
2. (zoom out; WAY out).
You are in this world. With others.

Whats that mean?
Moral GPS
8
Your particular moral location.
START
MENU
REST AREA
Operators Manual
Who and what you are depends a lot on where you were born, what your family was like,
what your schooling was like, what your neighborhood, town and religious group (if any) were
like, what opportunities youve had, what challenges or sufferings youve faced. It depends a
lot on whether you were born a boy or a girl, too.
Who and what you are, in other words, emerges from your story. Your moral decisions
arent made in a vacuum. They arise from who and what you are. So if you want to drive
responsibly on the Moral Highway, youll need to reflect on your story. (Youll do that next,
when you check the mirror.)
Youll find you have some moral assumptions: attitudes, values or principles that you take
for granted because thats the way its always beenfor you. Often those moral assumptions
are unconscious. Your Moral GPS will help you make them conscious, help you recognize
just where you are on the Moral Highway.
Youll also find you have limits. You can understand people who are like you. But people
who are not like you are more or less off your map, so you wont readily understand where
they are coming from. Such limits can lead to misunderstanding and collision. Your GPS can
help you avoid that.
Youre limited in what youre able to do, too. Youre a competent human being, sure. But its
important to know when you need to seek help, or when you have to leave the moral driving
in someone elses hands.
Youre limited in the people who form your circle of family, friends and co-workers. Thats not
a weakness. In fact the people who are close to you are likely your greatest strength. But
remember, there are billions more people in the world. They are likely to be very different
from you, and they count morally. The Moral GPS can help you understand the moral claims
that strangers can make on you. Thats why you have to zoom out, so you can locate yourself
in your world.
Next
Back
Moral GPS
9
Being in the World.
START
MENU
REST AREA
Operators Manual
Zoom out: Whatever your particular location, you find yourself in this world.
You find yourself here. You didnt come here by your own design. You didnt directly have a
choice about your gender, your culture, your homeland, what era would be your lifetime, what
social and economic standing your parents would have. Those are all given.
Know what? Thats true for every person who has ever been born into this world.
How did you get here? You were born. Thats true for every other person too: everybodys
been a baby. Thats not just a simple fact. Think about it. Human being is bodily being. We
are in our particular locations because of the circumstances of bodily birth. Everybody needs
to eat, to rest, to find shelter from bitter weather. Everybody has to deal with death.
Know something else? If everybodys been a baby, then everybodys had a Mommy. That
too is not just a simple fact. You were able to grow up because somebody else took care to
feed you, keep you warm, and change your diapersMommy or someone who cared for you
like a Mommy does. You didnt just drop into the world fully formed, beholden to nobody. You
came into the world owing, at least owing those who cared for you. Thats so for everybody
(though not all seem to be aware of it). But theres more.
Mommy did more than care just for your physical being. Sheand (or) otherstalked with
you, smiled and held and cuddled you, treated you like a person. Thats how you were able to
develop into a person who can talk and think and relate with other persons. Everybody has
become a person through interaction with other persons. You didnt just drop into the
world able to talk and think and choose. Other people drew you forth by relating to
you as a person. That means you owe a lot more people than Mommy.
So you find yourself in the world with others. Thats not the same as saying that
you dropped unattached into the world, and other people happen to be here too.
(Dern emthey get in my way! says the Road Menace, tailgating and blasting
his horn.) It means that, unavoidably, you exist as a person in relation to other persons.
Your personal story intertwines with the stories of others. Each of those persons is also linked
with others, forming a living network reaching out to everyone in the entire world. These links
reach beyond the present, forming a kind of universal human story of which each person
knows only a small part. But this much each and every person can know: you owe for the
livable world you received from those who lived before you; you also owe a livable world to
those who come after you. We are all in this together.
People talk. Okay, there are scores of languages in the world, and no one understands
them all. But did you know that there are patterns of thinking, expression, and conversation
that are shared by every person who is able to speak any language competently?
So what do you see when you zoom out with our Moral GPS to see where you are? You see
basic things that you have in common with every other human being. In other words, you find
a moral common world we share no matter how different our particular locations or how
different our particular stories. Everybody travels on the same Moral Highway.
(next)
Moral GPS
10
START
MENU
REST AREA
Operators Manual
2. CHECK THE MIRROR

Where are YOU coming from?
What is your Story?
Part of setting up your Moral GPS is figuring out where you are on the moral map.
Again, YOU are not the "eye in the sky." Youre in a particular location, coming from a
particular direction. As a result, you have your own story, and so you have developed
certain moral assumptions: attitudes, values or principles that you take for granted and
that form your moral habits. Assumptions are usually unconscious. Unless you want to
be a traffic obstruction, youd better make those assumptions conscious. Then you
may want to ask yourself some serious questions about them. (You may even decide to
make some changes.)
Story
Of course you know your story. Who else would? But really, how well do you know yourself
and your story? Beneath the reflective surface of your conscious thought is a deep pool of
nearly forgotten lived experiences that affect what you think, how you feel, and what you
choose to do.
Why do you like the music you like? The kinds of friends you make? Why do some things
make you feel deeply happy? Why do other things make you angry? Your particular story lies
beneath all those aspects of your conscious life.
Its important to be in touch with your storyand that for two reasons.
1. Knowing your story can help you understand yourselfyour strengths, your limits,
and why some values are especially important to you.
2. Knowing your story helps you understand that all other persons have their own stories,
and those affect their thought, their feelings, their moral values, and even their ability
to act. Knowing your story helps you understand where others are coming from.1
The trouble is, you're so close to your story that you may not see it as a story. Things happen
to you and you make choices, but it takes a special kind of thinking to see how it all connects
to shape you. You have to develop that special kind of thinking. How? One good strategy is
to read. Read good literature, stories with strong character portrayal, not just action stories.
Read good literature from cultures other than your own, too. That helps you understand and
appreciate yourself. It also helps you develop empathythe ability to understand and
appreciate others. Empathy is very important on the Moral Highway.
You also have to reflect on your story, to make conscious those nearly forgotten lived
experiences so you can better understand where youre coming from. But even then, be a bit
skeptical about your picture of yourself. Self-deception is a common riskdrawing a picture
of yourself thats more flattering than accurate. As you reflect on your story, pay special
attention to what other people think of you and how other people respond to you. Be ready to
laugh at yourself, too.
Psychologists call this aspect of story vicarious perspective-taking
1
Moral GPS
11
Further, things that happen to you and things that you do now may reveal aspects of your
past story that you werent aware of. Be ready to revise your story as your self-understanding
grows.
Ready? Try it. Reflect on your story. Then come back to think about how your story has
affected your attitudes, values, and principles. (Go to MyGPS)
Attitudes
What are your basic moral attitudes? Be honest with yourself.
How do you relate to others? Can you see how things look to another person? Or do
other peoples views just not make sense to you?
Do you consistently pursue goals, or do you wait to see what comes along?
Are your goals positive (striving for a "good") or negative (striving against "bad")?
Do you deal with issues directly or try to avoid issues?
Do you acknowledge mistakes or seek excuses/blame others?
Do you listen to others in order to understand or in order to refute?
Do you accept criticism of your moral judgments, or is it end of discussion!?
Do you think theres a clear right way and wrong way for every moral issue?
Reflect on your responses. Ask yourself honestly, Am I at risk of being a traffic obstruction?
A stalled vehicle? Even a Road Menace?
(Go to MyGPS)
Values
What moral values do you consider most important? For instance, is it more important to
keep a promise or to tell the truth? (You may want to stop at the Tourist Info Center for help
with thinking about moral values and theories.) What values would you be willing to sacrifice
(Go to MyGPS)
for those most important ones?
Theories (principles)
What moral theories do you find most convincing? Least convincing? For instance, would you
first ask Whats the bottom line here? (Thats Consequentialist thinking.) Or do you ask,
How do the people feel who would be affected by this? (Thats more like an Ethic of Care.)
Are you a one-theory moral thinker? Or do you consider an issue from many sides?
(Go to MyGPS)
Once you understand where youre coming from, youll realize that your moral viewpoint is
a particular, limited viewpoint. Just like your story is your personal story. Thats not bad;
thats inevitable! But realize that others may be coming from somewhere elsewith equally
strong values and theories. You must be able to deal with that if youre going to travel safely
on the Moral Highway.
(Next)
Moral GPS
12
START
MENU
REST AREA
Operators Manual
3. RULES OF THE ROAD

How You Talk about Moral Issues.
Its the Moral Highway were traveling with our Moral GPS, and the vehicle were
traveling in is LANGUAGE.
At this point, you need to think about how YOU use language to think and talk
about moral issues. Other people may use language differently. Obviously, lots of
people even speak languages different from yours. Elsewhere the GPS examines
where others may be coming from.
I should drive safely.
I ought to drive safely.
I will drive safely.
I am driving safely.
When you make a moral statement like one of those, you are committing yourself.
When you say, I should, to what are you committing yourself? Many people think
should makes a very general commitment: in ideal circumstances, or if nothing else
interferes.
When you say, I ought, to what are you committing yourself? Most people think ought
makes a particular commitment: right here and now, or in these circumstances.
When you say, I will, to what are you committing yourself? Action. DO it.
When you say, I am, what are you claiming? That your action would measure up if it were
evaluated.
You think youre driving safely, and your passenger says, Hey, youre going 25 miles over
the speed limit! Oops. You think, I should drive safely, but I am not, so I ought to slow
down, and I will slow down--right now. Whew your passenger says as you slow.
Put yourself in the passenger seat, saying:
You should drive safely!
You are not driving safely!
You ought to slow down!
What kind of claims are you making now? Do you really mean, The way you are driving
makes me uncomfortable? Or is there more to it than that? Highway safety isnt just a matter
of taste, is it? Arent you claiming that You owe it to yourself and others to drive safely? And
why is that? Becausewere all in this together.
What if your driver says, I am driving safely.
Youre going 25 over the speed limit!
So?
Moral GPS
13
Oops again. You both agree that you should drive safely. But you dont agree on how safely
translates into what you ought to be doing now. That happens a lot on the Moral Highway.
People may agree on a general norm (should), but they may disagree on what that
norm means in particular circumstances (ought).
How do you deal with that? Three things you need to know now:
1. When you appeal to a moral norm (drive safely,) do not assume that everyone else
means the same thing by it. (Check where are others coming from?)
2. Your understanding of a moral norm could be wrong.
Always critically examine your own understanding.
3. Moral norms are on the should level, general and in ideal circumstances.
In particular circumstances (the ought level), applying norms takes careful
consideration. (See "Eyes on the Road.)
Observe basic rules of courtesy and fairness in using moral language on this highway:
1. Stay in lane: Say what you mean and be consistent.
2. Listen to others respectfully. Dont interrupt or ridicule. (Dont be a Road Menace.)
3. If you disagree, give good reasons that the other person can understand.
4. Signal your turns: you're allowed to change your mind, but give good reasons to
explain what convinced you to change.
5. Dont force anyone off the road! Everyone has a right to be heard and to question.
These rules of the road are the practical expression of moral autonomy, and they embody
what has been called the Moral Point of View. So theyre more than just rules of etiquette.
Theyre fundamental moral norms. (See the Operators Manual about that.)
One more thing about talk: Your language comes from where you are.
Your language and your understanding of the world are shaped by your particular
experienceseven your particular experiences of universal things like being a baby. Your
language emerges from your story. Since others arent likely to know your story, they
stand a good chance of misunderstanding you. Be ready for that. Be ready to explain yourself
(rather than defending your position) by sharing the things in your story that affect what you
are trying to say. Such sharing opens the way to mutual empathy and avoids fruitless
argument. Remember your limits.
(next)
I could be wrong
Moral GPS
14
START
MENU
REST AREA
Operators Manual
4. CAREFUL!
Youre Not the Only One on the Road
Yes, youre on the road with other people. How you regard others is crucial
for your Moral GPS.
Would you rather have the road to yourself, and others are simply in your
way? Watch out: you may be a Road Menace. (Check unethical egoism.)
Others are people like yourselfbut different. Like you, all other persons
are coming from their particular places and trying to get to their particular
destinations. Like you, each other person has his or her own story. But where
they come from is different from you. Where theyre heading is different from
you. Their stories are different from yours.
How are you going to deal with this?
"I love mankind; it's people I can't stand."
-- Charles Schulz
Driving the Moral Highway is not a competitive sport. If you think so, youre at risk of
being a Road Menace. Remember this, too: youre not the "eye in the sky," so that you can
look down on abstract traffic patterns and consider others as impersonal units moving
predictably in assigned lanes. If you think so, youre at risk of being a traffic obstruction.
You share the Moral Highways with other people, not just other cars. Traveling the Moral
Highway is not just a matter of being fair, treating every other traveler in a uniform,
impersonal way. Its a matter of being alert to others particular needs and adapting (next
guys lane is ending; make room!). You want to drive so that all travelers can move smoothly
and safely toward their particular destinations.
You know that others on the Moral Highway are people, but you probably dont know
them personally. You think of them as he or she, not by name. But that can
change. Remember: at any time you may have to confront a moral issue together
with any other person, face to face. Traffic jam! Slow down. Turn into a rest area to
adjust the route. Then your relation to that nameless other person will change. He or
she makes a claim on you: try to understand me. Unless youre a Road Menace,
you recognize that you owe that effort to understand the other persons. Just as they owe the
same to you. Lets work together to find a way out of this traffic jam.
Two important things can happen then.
1. By working together you may find a way to steer through a difficult moral issue.
2. Nameless strangers now know each other, perhaps by name, and they understand
each other. Your particular world has expanded by your being allowed to visit
anothers particular world, and you are both morally richer for it.
(next)
Moral GPS
15
START
MENU
REST AREA
Operators Manual
5. DRIVE WITH CONFIDENCE

Caution with Trust
Drive defensively, student drivers are taught. Thats good advicebut
its not the most basic attitude you need. Otherwise youd never leave
the garage. When you set out on the Moral Highway, you need to trust
that other drivers will honor the rules of the road and make room for you.
But temper your trust with caution.
The Moral Highway runs on mutual trust. Each driver is coming from a different particular
place and going to a different particular destination. But all driversor at least almost all
have a more basic desire: keep travel safe and smooth as possible for everybody. Were
all in this together, right?
Each person trusts that others will make roomrespect her moral autonomy and allow her to
seek her particular destination without undue interference. Every person on the Moral
Highway has to accept the responsibility to be worthy of others trust. Thats what highway
courtesy is all about. That mutual trustworthiness lets us drive the Moral Highway with a
certain amount of confidence.2
Of course trusting means taking a risk. If you trust another, that person can disappoint you or
even betray you. If others trust you, you could fail them. Thats the risk you have to take.
Consider the alternativetrying to make a moral journey alone with no roads and with
constant fear of violent attack. No go.
Be cautious. Not every other driver is trustworthy, and even trustworthy people make
mistakes. Be alert for traffic obstructions, so you can help keep travel safe and smooth while
obstructions come up to speed. Keep your Moral GPS on: avoid a crash.
Beware the Road Menace. The Road Menace feels no obligation to be worthy of
others trust nor to respect others moral autonomy. He is likely to charge right
through an intersection even if you have the right of way. Why? Maybe he doesnt
consider that other people are morally important (the unethical egoist). Or maybe
hes so convinced his way is right that if youre not going his way, youve got no
right to be on the road (the moral bigot). Stay out of his way, if you canhes
heading for a collision and you don't want to be in it!
But it's not enough for you to stay out of his way. The Road Menace is a threat not only to
other drivers, but to the Moral Highway itself. The Road Menace violates the mutual trust on
which the Moral Highway runs, undercutting the very conditions that make moral dialog
possible and so undermining the moral autonomy of every other person, not only of those he
tries to override. The Road Menace must be dealt with if the Moral Highway is to remain open
and safe. (Otherwise, if mutual trust disintegrates, our world becomes what Thomas Hobbes
This pattern of mutual trust has been described as a covenantal relationship. See Joseph L. Allen, Love &
Conflict: A Covenantal Model of Christian Ethics (University Press of America, 1995), pp.16-17.
2
Moral GPS
16
called "a war of every man against every man," and our lives "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish,
and short."3 )
You know the risks. Thats important, lest you get overconfident. Traveling the Moral Highway
is risky. Mutual trust makes our travel possible. Dont take it for granted. Be thankful for it
and work to strengthen it. Were all in this together, so lets make it work. (Consider the
alternative!)
(next)
I could be wrong
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651

Moral GPS
17
START
MENU
REST AREA
Operators Manual
B. Other Drivers
Where Are Others Coming From?
Remember, your vehicle on the Moral Highway is language. The way people
travel is by talking with each other. Nowas you get an eye-in-the-sky view of
where you are in relation to othersyour task is to try to understand others.
Later you'll work toward mutual understanding and even consensus on issues.
Theres only one reliable way to learn where another person is coming from: Ask! Let
that person tell you.
Of course, it makes a big difference how you ask.
Say, what do you think about issue X? may work,
but not Why the !#@*&!! did you take that turn on issue X?!?
The first question invites to share understanding; the second is heading for a collision. Your
moral conversation should always aim for mutual understanding.
Some people may not explicitly know where theyre coming from. Your Moral GPS can help
you understand themand even help you guide them to understand themselves!
Try to identify the other persons moral assumptions. What has to be important to that
person in order for her moral stand to make sense?
I dont think its safe to drive 25 over the speed limit.
I understand, you say, but why is it that you think so?
Its harder to control the car; youre likely to crash. Ah, so results are important.
Once I was going 10 over, and I went into a skid. Personal story sets the norm.
My Dad would kill me if I went over the limit. Uh, you got yourself a rookie driver.
Its the law. Duty is important to this person.
Youll become familiar with typical moral assumptions as we choose routes and examine
main roads. Maybe you can help others locate themselves in relation to the main roads.
If its personal story thats a persons primary moral assumption, theres no map of main
routes for comparing it. Just listen and try to understand. Remember, youve been formed by
your personal story, so you know how important story is. Listen; empathize; understand.
Remember that personal story undergirds each persons moral assumptions, no matter how
sophisticated the reasons they give. If I value results above all, theres probably something in
my story that could explain why I think that way. Lets say you value duty above all, and I am
frustrated because you want to follow duty even when it will lead to bad results. I might argue
with you. But I could do better to listen to your story to learn why duty is so important to you,
for then I might understand you in a way that could help bring us to consensus.
Of course, you wont always have the opportunity to listen to anothers story. After all, that
kind of sharing depends on developing a certain level of trust, and that wont always happen.
There is another way to sense the shape of another persons life-world: metaphors. Take
note of the kinds of metaphors a person uses to convey thoughts, for those metaphors are
Moral GPS
18
strong clues to how that person interprets life and the worldconsciously or unconsciously.
For instance, a traffic obstruction named Joe Block4 may use expressions from football a lot:
gain some yards or hold the line. This suggests he interprets life as a game, a struggle to
win by outmaneuvering or overpowering the other side. By contrast, the Moral GPS builds
on the metaphor of life as a shared journey where the struggle is to work together instead of
against each other. So before youre able to help Joe get up to speed on the Moral Highway,
youll need to help him become conscious of his metaphor-based perspective and its
limitations. Then you may be in a position to help him frame his world by other, more
appropriate metaphors.
Further, you need to know what is at stake for the other person. Where is she trying to go?
What is at risk for her? How will your actions affect her? (We're all linked. That's why all
persons affected by a moral issue are often called stakeholders.) Should she be actively
included in your decision process? (That question comes up as you prepare to decide.)
Most people will have many reasons for a moral stand (unless youve got a one-way driver).
So figuring out where others are coming from is not a simple task.
What you are trying to do is understand others, especially others who have moral views
different from your own. Youre not trying to change anyone, yourself included. Not yet.
You may want to ask the same questions that you asked yourself. Try to figure out:
What is this persons basic moral attitude?
What values are most important to this person?
What is at stake for her in this issue?
What moral theories are most convincing to this person?
Is she a one-way driver or does she consider different perspectives?
Might she be a rookie driver and need help toward a more mature view?
You may find that these questions dont quite connect for the other person, particularly if her
culture is very different from your own. Dont give up! Ask her to help you understand. Your
reading of good literature from other cultures will be a great help to you here.
(Go to MyGPS)
One caution: be wary of the disguised Road Menace. How can you spot a Road Menace?
He ignores the rules of the road! Think of those basic rules of the road:
- Listen to others respectfully; dont interrupt or ridicule.
- If you disagree, give good reasons that the other person can understand.
- Dont force anyone off the road! Everyone has a right to be heard and to question.
The rules reflect mutual respect for moral autonomy, and the Road Menace lacks that.
If someone hears what you say but then reinterprets it back to you so it fits in his framework
but not yours, hes not respecting your moral autonomy. If someone keeps pushing a
particular agenda no matter what others are saying or thinking, hes not respecting moral
autonomy no matter how big his smile or firm his handshake. Hes trying to manipulate you.
Hes a Road Menace. (Check how to deal with the Road Menace.)
Watch for people who get shunted off the Moral Highway, or who can't even break into traffic.
This is not a limited access highway. Everyone has a right to be heard and to raise moral
questions. If anyone is left out, that needs to be fixed. If whole groups of people are left out
because other travelers on the highway can't even see the road they're coming from, that
needs to be fixed.
see Helping Rookie Drivers in the Tourist Information Center.
4
Moral GPS
19
Remember that important rule of the road, dont force anyone off the road. That means any
deliberate excluding of stakeholders undermines the moral validity of any decision you make,
and it undermines the relationships among the people involved. Thats true even
stakeholders arent directly excluded. If you are aware of indirect exclusions and make no
attempt to fix them, you vitiate the moral validity of any decision and you corrupt the
relationships of all the people involved.
* * *
Okay, each person is coming from a different direction and has a different particular moral
location. You understand that, right? And you understand (at least a little) how to discern
where different people are coming from. Youre very tolerant of all those differences, right?
THAT DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING GOES!
Its fine for different people to travel Moral Highways with entirely different moral assumptions
as long as the road is clear and nobody has to change lanes. (See cultural relativism.) BUT if
a dangerous intersection comes along, youll need to stop and think. It is NOT OKAY for
everybody just to keep going along the way theyve come: youll all collide!
No matter where different people are coming from, people sometimes have to
cooperate to find their way through a road hazard or congested area. Turn into a
rest area in order to figure out what values and principles different people share so
that you can travel together.
(next)
Moral GPS
20
C. Road Hazards
Moral Dilemmas, Controversies, and Dangerous Intersections
START
MENU
REST AREA
Operators Manual
uh Now what???
Moral Habit serves you well most of the time. But keep your Moral GPS on
anywayroad hazards can be hidden even along familiar ways.
Sometimes you just have to stop and think. You come to a fork in the road, and youre not
sure which way to turn. You find a familiar road blocked. You have a near-miss at an
intersection. Learn to spot road hazards and dangerous intersections early.
Familiar Roads.
Moral habit defines our familiar roads. You can travel with the assurance youre going the
right way. You know where the ditches and washouts arewrong waysand it doesnt take
much thought to avoid them. Unless-===
=======
==
====
==
==
If your familiar road is blocked, you have to rethink your route, just as if you were traveling an
unfamiliar road. SO STAY ALERT! Keep your Moral GPS on. Avoid a crash.
Road Hazard: Moral Dilemma.
A moral dilemma is a fork in the road. There is no one clear way to go. You face
alternatives, and you must choose. Each alternative has good reasons for it, but
when you take one, you cannot take the other. Trouble is, there are values in
each alternative. Take one, and you sacrifice values of the others.
Youre on a vacation trip. Your twins are in the back seat. One fork goes to the beach. Jenny
wants to go to the beach. The other fork goes to the mountains. Johnny wants to go to the
mountains. When you come to a dilemma, you cant please everybody. But whichever fork
you take, youre going to have to have some pretty good reasons for the person you
disappoint. You'll have to steer carefully.
Drive cautiously: what looks like a dilemma may actually be a challenge to moral integrity.
Check the Tourist Information Center for help in recognizing and resolving dilemmas.
Moral GPS
Road Hazard: Congested Area
21
An entire society can face a moral dilemma. Like it or not, because of your particular
moral location, the hot issues current in your era are yours. Public controversy roils
and sometimes rages about many unsettled moral challenges. In the early twentyfirst century United States, for instance, some hot issues are abortion, care of the
critically ill, health care financing, stem cell research, the rights of illegal immigrants, the
rights of terrorism suspectsthe list goes on. Reasonable people present morally acceptable
arguments on opposing sides of these issues, but no consensus is clear.
Congested areas provide wonderful subjects for student research papers in ethics. You'll
have no problem finding well-footnoted articles in learned journals arguing the pros and cons
of such an issue. You'll find newspaper articles and magazine features, websites and blogs,
statements of politicians and direct mailings by interest groups. Your Moral GPS can help you
sort through the arguments, identify assumptions behind them, evaluate strengths and
weaknesses. But if you have to propose a resolution, you're on your own. You have to
decide, and give good reasons for your decision.
Dangerous Intersection: A Moral Dilemma You Can't Resolve Alone.

Some moral dilemmas you can resolve by your own decision. But many moral
dilemmas can be resolved only if two or more people concur in a
decision. You cannot take it for granted that others will agree with your point
of view. You have to understand where each other person involved is coming
from. Then you'll have to watch out for each other, or else you'll find yourself
in a collision, especially if a Road Menace approaches.
(next)
Moral GPS
22
START
MENU
REST AREA
Operators Manual
Second Step: Where To?

Okay, you've seen how things look from the "eye in the sky," so you've got an
idea where you are, where you're coming from, where others are coming from,
and what kinds of hazards you're likely to meet on the Moral Highway.
But you haven't moved yet.
No rush. Better to set your direction before rolling out.
Now you have an overview of the Moral Highway. You know what it takes to drive responsibly
on that Highway. Before you go anywhere, you have to figure out where you want to go. You
set a destination for your journey, a goal.
The destination of a particular journey fits within the larger goal of your life journey. Your life
journey, in turn, weaves within the vast fabric of the life journeys of others. All of those
journeys take people from a known present into a future that is uncertain. The Moral Highway
is a shared road, and it is a shared moral journey that we travel.
In order to set your Moral GPS for a particular trip, you need first to program in your overall
life goals so that your particular trip doesnt take you off your main life route. Further, you
need to be aware of goals and ideals for all people, so that you may travel your life journey in
safety and harmony on the Moral Highway.
But things change, dont they? A particular journey may alter your understanding of your life
journey. Your Moral GPS provides a go home setting that invites you to reflect on such
changes and to evaluate whether they are helpful changes or side tracksor even ditches.
Set Goals
A. Look Ahead
B. Your Goals and Ideals
C. Goals and Ideals for All
D. Particular Goals
C. "Go Home" setting
Moral GPS
23
A. Look Ahead
START
MENU
REST AREA
Where to?
Operators Manual
On the Moral Highway, you're coming from somewhere and you've got someplace
to go. You're not just sitting in your vehicle gazing at a compass trying to figure out
which way is up. That's what's different about your Moral GPS.
Driving instructors tell you to focus your eyes as far ahead as you can see on the
road. Good advice for the Moral Highway, too. Helps you avoid road hazards. Helps to
keep you on your selected route. But even then, there is that horizon. . . .
Remember where you are. You're in a particular place and time, right? Yet the "eye in the
sky" tells you you're also in the world, with others who are like you but different.
Here's an important, simple fact about where you are. You're in time. You are where you are
because you've come there from a particular past. The "eye in the sky" tells you that your
particular past is one little strand in the bigger movement of time that's called human history.
Like it or not, your particular history is tied together with global history.
You know your own past pretty well, right? (Well, maybe some things are fuzzy, and some
others you'd rather forget.) If you've studied any history, you know something about the past
of your nation, maybe even of the whole world. But how much do you know for sure about
what's ahead for you and for the world?
The future is uncertain. The past is past. What's future is yet to be determined.
You can be sure of this: what happens in the world around you will affect your own
future. But here is a more important thought: What you do will affect what
happens in the world around you. Like it or not, we're all in this together.
That's why you need to focus your eyes as far ahead as you can see. You're accountable for
your decisions, you know. You're responsible for how your actions affect others, not only now
but into the foreseeable future. You are responsible for seeing as far ahead into that future as
you can--then, as you go, to keep checking that you're not off route.
But there's that horizon. You don't know for sure how your decisions will affect others.
What you intend for good may wind up causing harm. What you think is right may turn out
seen by hindsightto be wrong. You can see ahead only so far, and then . . . you just don't
know. You can't know.
So would you rather just stay in the garage? Don't. Don't become a stalled vehicle, either.
That's why Moral GPS is not only a positive ethic; its a hopeful ethic. You can't be certain
how your decision will affect others, for good or ill, for right or wrong. Yet you have to act. Do
your best to set good goals, choose reliable routes, and steer carefully. But whether you bring
about real good is going to depend on factors beyond your control, often on other people's
good will and help. That's the way it goes in this world you share with others. You have to
act in hope.
(next)
Moral GPS
24

Do you know where you want to go?
Maybe you have a destination for this particular trip.
But do you know where you want to go altogether?
START
MENU
REST AREA
Where to?
Operators Manual
In all your traveling on the Moral Highway,

What do you seek?
Typically, the first response to this kind of question is, "Uh . . . gee . . . hmmmm. . . well, gosh,
uh . . . let me think about that!" Okay, think about it. What do you seek in your life?
Most people wind up saying, "well, I guess I'd like to be happy." Happy. That's a good start.
So what do you think will make you happy?
You can make a mistake at this point. Some people answer this question with "MONEY!!"
But what is money worth in itself? Not much. Money is good because you can use it to buy
stuff. Okay, what stuff? Now you're back to: what do you think will make you happy?
A time-honored answer to that is "living the good life." Good. So what's the "good life"?
Only you can answer that for yourself. Here are some questions to help you do so:
o What qualities do you seek in yourself?
o What qualities do you seek in your relationships with others?
o What qualities do you seek in the conditions of your life?
Qualities you might seek in yourself add up to your ideal character. A classic set of such
qualities (from Plato) is prudence (good judgment about how to work with others to attain a
goal), justice (fairness in your dealings with others), courage (maintaining your integrity when
it's not easy), and moderation (live gently and avoid extremes). These are called virtues, the
inner strengths of a good character. Think; what do you seek? (For more about Virtue, stop in
the Rest Area.)
Qualities you might seek in your relationships with others might be summed up in the
"Golden Rule:" act toward others as you'd like them to act toward you. Carry that one step
further. The other person is like you, but different, remember? She wants you to respect her
in herself: try to understand meas I am, not just as you think I am. You might want to
develop the ability to listen, empathize, understand. Think: What do you seek?
An important quality you might seek in yourself is the ability to do good work that benefits
others. Think: what do you want to do in your life?
Qualities you might seek in the conditions of your life come to mind if you ask what might
be preventing you from attaining what you seek. Lack of education? Health problems? Low
Income? Discrimination? Think: what conditions do you need to help you
attain the qualities you seek?
Think of what you seek, what you want to do in your life, what conditions you
need to help you attain what you seek. Put it all together, and enter it in your
Moral GPS. (Go to MyGPS)
(next)
Moral GPS
25
C. Goals and Ideals for ALL

Okay, you've got an idea where you want to go.
Now look down from the "eye in the sky":
all these others with whom you travel
what do they seek?
START
MENU
REST AREA
Where to?
Operators Manual
What does that mean to you?

Are YOU supposed to help them?
"What??" you say. "There are billions of people on the Moral Highway. There's no way I can
help every one of them. You've got to be joking!"
No joke. On the Moral Highway, every driver has a responsibility to make room for every
other driver. That's simple highway courtesy. Refuse to accept that responsibility and you
become a Road Menace.
Earlier, you set your personal goals and ideals into your Moral GPS, didn't you? You know,
too, that every other person is seeking "the good life" just as you are, right? But the list of
what makes for the "good life" is different for each person.
What conditions do we need on the Moral Highway so all can seek their goals?
Remember the Golden Rule. How would you like to be treated on the Moral Highway? You'd
want to use your own "good life" list to set your direction, right? You don't want to be herded
along toward somebody else's destination. That's true for everyone else, too! So a basic
condition is the freedom5 for all to seek their own goals. Simple enough.
But it's not simple. Two major obstacles face travelers on the Moral Highway. One is
conditions that prevent people from traveling toward their destinations. The other is the risk
of collision when people with very different routes travel toward very different destinations
on the same highway. Overcoming these obstacles is a goal for all.
What kind of conditions prevent people from seeking their goals? People can be shunted
off the Moral Highway in two basic ways. They can have a breakdown, or others may just
fail to make room for them, exclude them.
A breakdown happens when people's essential living needs are not met, and they can't
exercise their freedom because of poverty, hunger, poor health care, or ignorance. One goal
for all, then, is basic economic and social justice that ensures the essentials of life to
every person. This is a positive goalsomething to be achieved.
People can be excluded either by direct oppression (a regime or condition that actively
prevents people from making choicesoften by violence) or by being ignored. The latter
happens through prejudice and unconscious discriminationpeople failing to respect the
differences of others. Such exclusions should be eliminateda negative goal.
Danger: dont confuse freedom with license: doing whatever you want, going wherever you want, however you
want, without interference or restraint of any kind, including consideration for others. On the Moral Highway,
license is a characteristic of the Road Menace.
5
Moral GPS
26
Remember that important rule of the road, dont force anyone off the road. That means any
deliberate excluding of stakeholders undermines the moral validity of any decision you make,
and it undermines the relationships among the people involved. Thats true even if
stakeholders arent directly excluded. If you are aware of indirect exclusions and make no
attempt to fix them, you vitiate the moral validity of any decision and you corrupt the
relationships of all the people involved.
Striving toward these goals and ideals for all is therefore not optional on the Moral Highway.
These are rooted in the rules of the road, and those are based on the necessary conditions
for the Highway to work at allthe presuppositions of dialog toward mutual understanding.
What about the risk of collision?
If all kinds of people heading freely in different directions on different routes are all traveling
the highway at the same time, won't there be massive pile-ups all over the place?
But that doesn't happen, does it? At least not very often. Why not?
Think just a moment about what freedom means on the Moral Highway.
Does it mean that you can go wherever you want, however you want, without interference or
restraint of any kind? That sounds good, doesn't it? But do you see a problem? (If you don't,
check on what makes for a Road Menace.) (By the way, see "license.")
On the Moral Highway, you cant be free alone. Freedom is for everyone. That means what
you can do is limited by concern for other people. You can go where you want, yesas
long as you allow others to go where they want. The way you do that is by observing the
rules of the road. You accept those limits on what you can do in order to allow others to
travel safely toward their destinations. Freedom includes responsibility.
By accepting responsibility for respecting the freedom of others, you affirm your full freedom,
your moral autonomy, as a person embracing life in the world with others. You pursue not
only your own goals, but also the shared goal of keeping the Moral Highway open and safe
for all travelers, wherever they come from and wherever they're going. Your own freedom is
a social reality. Your full autonomy is linked with that of others.
Moral Autonomy isn't just a given. You're not born with it (though you're born with a
capacity for it). Gradually as you grew up, you began to act as a moral agentable to make
choices and to be held accountable for your choices. But full moral autonomy comes about
through a process of moral maturing that enlarges your awareness to embrace every other
human beingeven those who lived well before your time and those who will come after you.
That means you're likely to be something of a rookie driver along the way. That's okay; be
patient with yourself and with others. But do what you can to foster your growth and that of
others in moral autonomy. Mutual respect for moral autonomy includes patience and care for
each other as together we grow toward full autonomy.
It's mutual respect for moral autonomy that ensures that the Moral Highway isn't clogged
and littered with collisions and pileups. If you respect the moral autonomy of others, when a
dangerous intersection approaches, you know that you have to work together with others.
You will steer carefully and keep together with others to avoid a collision and to resolve any
road hazards.
Moral GPS
27
So there are goals and ideals for all, even though each person seeks his or her own goals.
There are goals and ideals for all travel on the Moral Highway, even if this trip is for a
particular, limited objective. Those goals are:
attain appropriate freedom for everyone

ensure the essentials of life for everyone
eliminate exclusions
foster mutual respect for moral autonomy
work out differences through cooperation
Concern for those goals makes the Moral Highway possible. They aren't arbitrary. They
ground our mutual trust. They are the foundation for the common good. These have to be
your goals, toocalling forth from you not only empathy but compassion. Ignore these goals
for all, and you become a Road Menace. Reflect on them and make them part of your
Moral GPS.
Dont kid yourself, though. These are not short-term goals that you can expect to achieve.
The are shoulds, but you ought to do what you reasonably can toward attaining them. Then
your efforts not only make the Moral Highway possible. While you travel the Moral Highway,
your efforts creatively steer the highway itself toward a global community in which those
goals are realized more and more fully and widely.
(to MyGPS)
(next)
Moral GPS
28
D. Particular Goals
Local Trips
START
MENU
Where to?
Operators Manual
You've set your overall goals and ideals into your Moral GPS.
The "eye in the sky" perspective showed you that there are goals and ideals for
the Moral Highway that are programmed right into the highway.
But now you just want to take a short trip!
How do you set your Moral GPS for particular goals?
Your automobile is past its prime, so you want to trade it in on a new one. That's a simple
enough trip, isn't it? Hardly a major challenge to moral integrity. It's a good idea to check your
Moral GPS in any case, just so you don't slip into even a minor crash. Leave it on.
Here are some questions to help you set your Moral GPS for a particular goal:
1. Is your particular goal a worthy goal?
- How does your particular goal fit within your overall goals?
(If one of your overall goals is stewardship of natural resources, you'll think
twice before buying a GasHog Behemoth V12 SUV, won't you?)
- How does your overall goal fit within the goals and ideals for all?
(If you accept the obligation to do what you can to ensure the essentials of life
for everyone, you might want to check that the workers who built the car are
paid a living wage, don't you think?)
- Why are you choosing this goal? (what good reasons would you give to someone
who asked you this question? Look ahead to choose route.)
- Is it a goal worth seeking, or is it a waste of your time, energy and resources?
(Do you need a new car, or is this just a whim responding to a TV ad?)
2. Are you seeking your goal prudently? Prudence here is the careful estimating of the
most efficient and effective means to attain a goal.
- Have you evaluated your alternatives?
(Have you compared different cars? Have you checked prices? Negotiated?)
- Is your goal within your means? (Can you afford the thing??)
- Have you talked with others affected by your choice?
(Your wife is the taxi driver for your daughter's field hockey team. She needs to
use your car. Will they all fit? Your brother considers himself a car expert. Did
you let him share his opinion? If not, you'll hear about it . . .)
3. Are you heading for a crash or a collision? Later you will program
Places to Avoid into your Moral GPS. Leave it on. There are important
moral boundaries that limit your options as you pursue particular goals. For
instance:
- Respect the rights of others (obviously, don't buy a stolen car!).
- Avoid needless harm.
- Avoid falsehood and misrepresentation.
Always remember that even a short trip takes you on the Moral Highway. Keep the "eye in
the sky" perspective even when you're in your most familiar neighborhood. (To MyGPS)
(next)
Moral GPS
29
E. "Go Home" Setting

START
MENU
REST AREA
Where to?
Operators Manual
You can get lost on the Moral Highway.

You may travel through unfamiliar places and congested areas.
You may face many road hazards and help clear many traffic obstructions.
Your Moral GPS may faithfully map out each intersection,
but you can still lose sight of the big picture of where you are,
where you come from,
and where you really want to go.
Make sure you program your Moral GPS with a "Go Home" setting.
Otherwise, you're risking a crash.
Driving instructors and law enforcement officers remind you again and again:
Driver fatigue causes crashes.

You are not immune from driver fatigue on the Moral Highway. Keeping your Moral GPS on
may help keep you aware of what's going on around you on the highway, but sometimes you
just have to stop and rest.
Take the time to remind yourself:
Where you are
Where you come from
Where you seek to go
How you help keep travel safe and smooth on the Moral Highway
Take the time to program your own Moral GPS. Note down your insights into these basic
dimensions of your moral traveling. (Go to MyGPS.)
You may find changes in your understanding of these dimensions as you travel. That's not a
bad thingas long as you don't lose touch with your most basic values and goals. Signal
your turnseven to yourself.
Use the "Go Home" setting on your Moral GPS to note such changes. You may want to
reflect on whether the changes reflect moral maturing, or if they are warnings that you need a
moral tune-up.
Set up MyGPS now, as you're thinking through the "where to" phase of your journey on the
Moral Highway. Then it will be ready for you if you suddenly come upon a road hazard.
(next)
Moral GPS
30
START
MENU
REST AREA
go to Flow Chart
Operators Manual
Third Step: Choose Route

OK, you've located yourself on the Moral Highway map.
Youve got an idea where other drivers are coming from and going to.
Youve set your goal for this particular trip.
You're keeping overall goals and ideals in mind, yours and everybody's.
Now you're ready to GO!, right?
Nope. Sorry.
Time to choose your route.
That should be easy, right?
Nope. Sorry.
Traveling the Moral Highway isn't as simple as "drive four tenths of a mile and turn left."
You'd better see how routes work on the Moral Highway before trying to go anywhere.
Just like any highway system, the Moral Highway has some established routes that enable
people to find their way to their goal safely and without too much confusion. Those routes are
the values and theories that are widely used to support moral decisions and to help people
understand why a direction or decision is justifiedor not. These routes are described in
typical textbooks in moral philosophy. But the Moral GPS shows you how to drive according
to these routes, and it isnt as easy as it might look.
Since the Moral GPS is a positive ethic, it uses the major values and theories to help you
and others with youto proceed safely and smoothly toward your goals. At the same time,
the theories can work as guardrails: negative norms or boundaries to warn you away from
moral mistakes. Theories can also help you to find your way through difficult moral dilemmas
(road hazards) on the Moral Highway.
So its important to map out your route before setting out on your particular journey. Then
youll be ready, and you wont be surprised by twists and turns on the Moral Highway.
A. How Routes Work on the Moral Highway

B. Main Routes and Their Alternate Routes
(Major Moral Values and Theories)
C. Areas to Avoid
(Negative Norms / Moral Boundaries)
D. Detours
(Around Road Hazards)
Moral GPS
31
START
MENU
REST AREA
Choose Route
Operators Manual

On an ordinary highway for automobiles, you travel only one route at once, right?
Isn't it impossible to travel more than one route at the same time?
You would think so. It's obvious.
Guess what.
It's not that way on the Moral Highway.
What, did you think it would be easy to drive the Moral Highway?
Guess again.
When you took an "eye in the sky" view of other drivers, you found that for one person results
might be the most important consideration. For another person duty might be. Results and
Duty represent two basic different kinds of moral theorytwo different routes on the Moral
Highway.
However, if ONLY results are important to a person, you've got a one-way driver heading for
a crash. If ONLY duty is important to a person, you've got a one-way driver heading for a
crash.
To see how this works, let's take a quick trip into a congested area: care of the critically ill.
Octogenarian Millie is dying of cancer. Normal doses of medication no longer alleviate her
pain. Dr. R. plans her treatment considering only results. Whatever he does, Millie is going
to die soon. Her death can be slow and painful, or quick and painless. "It's obvious from
comparing results," Dr. R. says. "For her own good, I'll euthanize her right away!"
What if Dr. D. comes along and considers only duty? "Cause no harm," he swore in the
Hippocratic Oath. Do nothing that might hasten her death. But Millie is in agony! That's harm,
isn't it? "Ah yes," Dr. D. says, "but it's not a harm that I am causing! This course of nonintervention is obviously right!"
Dr. Rs reasoning is flawless within his results-only theory. Dr. Ds reasoning is
flawless within his duty-only theory. But theories are like routes as they appear on
a map. The actual road and traffic conditions are not part of the picture. Thats why
every theory has a serious crash risk unless you keep your eyes on the road and
have alternate routes in mind.
So if you care at all about Millie (who is not, after all, a theory, right?), you're probably ready
to choke two overconfident physicians. Neither one sees a road hazard, because neither
one can see beyond his one narrow moral theory. They're both one-way drivers. Crashprone!
On the Moral Highway, you have to travel a route and its alternate route at the
same time! Concern for duty would alert Dr. R. that Millie's case is not as simple as
he first thought. Concern for results would alert Dr. D. that he cannot just wash his
hands of Millie's agony without doing something. Neither one could be quite so
confident any more, nor quite so liable to crash.
Moral GPS
32
You noticed, of course, that traveling both routes at the same time immediately alerted
you to the road hazard that Millie's case presents, for each route pointed opposite the other.
Your Moral GPS will show alternate routes, so keep it on.
Moral Highway routes balance each other. Part of your challenge is to find that balance.
(next)
Moral GPS
33
START
MENU
REST AREA
Choose Route
Operators Manual
B. Main Routes and Their Alternate Routes

(Major Moral Values and Theories)
Knowing about moral theories can help you clarify what counts in your mind as
good reasons for going somewhereor not.
Knowing about alternate routes can alert you to each theory's crash risk,
so you don't become a crash-prone one-way driver.
The theories will be helpful for other steps in your Moral GPS, too
steering carefully, staying together and being accountable to others.
If you want a more detailed map of values and theories
visit the Tourist Info Center.
(While you're there, take note of the architecture of the Tourist Info Center.)
Values
Not long ago, your Moral GPS asked you, "Where to?" Then you asked yourself several
questions"What do you seek?" The answer to that "what" question is a value: an aspect
of your life with others that you consider good, i.e. something you want to seek. Among those
goods are moral values: goods that are closely linked to our decisions and so morally
important.
The moral values most commonly invoked are life, love, truth, loyalty, freedom and justice.
(You might check your mirror to see which values you count most important.) Your values
keep you stable on the Moral Highway. Careful, thoughthat list of values is abstract (the
"should" level). In practice (the "ought" level), each value has a crash risk.
For instance, if you value life above all, could you sacrifice your life for loyalty to others? If
you value truth above all, would you tell the tale you promised your friend to keep secret?
Often road hazards are just thatdilemmas posed by values that conflict with each other.
Congested areas often focus around similar conflicts of value. You'll notice that the "driving
practice" and trip tips included in your Moral GPS is organized according to the central values
involved: life, truth, and justice.
Be alert. What you seek on the Moral Highway is a value. But you want to minimize
its crash risk. Always look out for other values that may be at stake in any decision
you face. You will have to steer carefully among them. You may need moral
theories to help you do that steering.
Of course, each moral theory has its own crash risk, too . . .
(For more about values, go to the Tourist Info Center)
(next)
Moral GPS
34
START
MENU
REST AREA
Choose Route
Major Theories
Operators Manual
Moral Values answer the "what" question: what do you seek on the Moral Highway?
Then you try to set a hierarchy of values, and another question rises.
Then you meet someone who doesn't share your value, and he asks that question.
Your decision has harmed someone, and that person asks the same question.
"Why?"
Moral theories seek to explain what kinds of things count as good reasons that can
provide a satisfactory answer to the "Why" question. Someone might ask you, "Why do you
think it is important to tell the truth?" Here are three major routes toward a satisfactory
answer to that "why" question: care, results and duty.
Care
The Care Route starts from our living in the world with others. Moral value is grounded in
the actual relationships that you have with other peoplerelationships linking you into a
human network that reaches all around the world and through time.
The first requirement of Care is to recognize and respect the other person in herself, not
an "instance" of "humanity," but a real person with whom you interact here and now. Care
requires empathy and compassion.
The next requirement amounts to a remake of the "Golden Rule"treat another not as you
would wish to be treated but as she would wish. Remember how to know that? Ask! Listen!
Try to see things from her point of view.
The Way of Care allows the other person to be herself, different from you. It insists on
mutual respect for moral autonomy, in practice, in every human interaction.
Why is truth important? Because honesty is essential for relationships. Lying manipulates
another person, violating her moral autonomy. That's why truth has the moral right of way on
the Care Route.
The Care Route has its crash risks. Yes, it's important to focus on concrete interpersonal
relationshipskeep your eyes on the road! But the "eye in the sky" view is important too.
Otherwise you can lose sight of the global issues that are the context of your concrete
relationships. Likewise, by focusing on one relationship you may ignore many other
relationships that make a moral claim on you. The Care Route doesn't show you how to
choose which of those relationships should have priority.
If you take the Care Route, be sure to set an appropriate alternate route on your Moral
GPS screen. You need a moral theory that stresses the "eye in the sky" view. Program in the
Utilitarian path from the Results Route, or one of the paths from the Duty Route.
(For more about the Ethic of Care, stop in the Tourist Info Center.)
(next)
Moral GPS
35
START
MENU
REST AREA
Choose Route
Operators Manual
Results
The Results Route starts from our "Where To?" setting. What do you seek? You seek to
achieve good and to avoid bad. Moral Value is grounded in foreseen beneficial results.
The first requirement of the Results Route is to estimate the results of a proposed course of
action. But from whose point of view are we estimating? If you're seeking results that are
good for you, that's a theory called egoism. If you're seeking results that are good for
everybody (or at least for most people since you can't please everybody), that's a theory
called utilitarianism.
Egoism
Egoism can be ethical or unethical. Ethical egoism, sometimes called "universal egoism,"
holds that each person should always seek her own good (self-interest). That means that if
you should seek your self-interest, then I should seek my self-interest. Obviously, I should let
you seek your self-interest, and you should let me seek mine. Ethical egoism includes
mutual respect for moral autonomy. The "level playing field" is a metaphor for that mutual
respect. (Market theory holds that universal egoism leads to the best results for most
peoplea utilitarian outcome.)
Unethical egoism lacks respect for others' autonomy. You think you should seek your selfinterest, and you just don't care what others do as long as they stay out of your way. That's a
recipe for a Road Menace. Or you think you should seek your self-interest and that everyone
else should work for your self-interest, too. That brand of egoism brings "Road Menace" to
the level of sociopath. These forms of egoism are unethical because they ignore the most
basic rule of the road, mutual respect for moral autonomy.
Why is truth important? Because you rely on trustworthy use of language in order to pursue
your self-interest. Reliable communication is in everyone's self-interest, and so truth has the
moral right of way on the Egoism path.
Ethical egoism has crash risks. If your pursuit of self-interest threatens to collide with my
self-interest, who yields? The stronger? Oopsone of us just turned into a Road Menace. If
you don't know the theory of egoism and it would hurt my self-interest if you learned it, I need
to hide the theory from you, don't I? By so preventing you from pursuing your self interest, I
just metamorphosed into a Road Menace. Ethical egoism will work very well as a moral
theory if there's nobody but you on the road. Otherwise, it's got serious crash risks.
The Results Route offers an alternate route to balance out the crash risks of egoism. If you
seek results that are good not only for you but for everybody, you avoid those risks.
Utilitarianism does just that, and still grounds moral value in foreseen beneficial results. That
theory can even guide you to sacrifice your self interest "for the greater good." But
utilitarianism has its own crash risks, as youll see.
Market Theory: Egoist Practice with Utilitarian Results.
Bridging egoism and utilitarianism is the Market Theory. This is primarily an economic theory,
but its concepts are based in the work of Adam Smith, an 18th-century Scottish moral
Moral GPS
philosopher. Smith proposed that choices made on the basis of individual self-interest
(egoism) are guided by an invisible hand so that the overall result for a society is
utilitarianthe greatest good for the greatest number.
36
In practice, then, individuals need not be concerned for any good beyond self-interest, for the
common good is best achieved by the natural function of the free market.
The Market Theory has ethical crash risks, particularly if a person holds dogmatically to an
infallible operation of the market and does not take into account the actual results for society.
The market theory is, after all, a consequentialist theory. You cant consistently hold to that
theory if you ignore actual consequences.
(For more about Egoism and the Market Theory, stop in the Tourist Info Center.)
(next)
Moral GPS
37
START
MENU
Utilitarianism
REST AREA
Choose Route
Utilitarian theory grounds moral value in foreseen good results for the greatest number
of people. Choose a course of action to maximize good and minimize burdens.
How do you estimate what's a good and what's a burden? That's easy if you're an egoist:
a good is something you like; a burden is something you dislike. It's not so easy if you're a
utilitarian, for you have to know what other people like and dislike. Utilitarian thinkers came
up with a simple solution to that problem: everybody likes pleasure and everybody dislikes
pain. That solution proved too simple, so it had to be refined to calculate in the quality of
pleasure as well as quantity. In fact, it's possible to set up a complex calculation of the
foreseen results of any action:
+ what quantity and quality of pleasure will result for how many people
- what quantity and quality of pain (burden) for how many people
= the action's utility.
Why is truth important? If you tell an untruth in order to escape embarrassment, you may
increase your pleasure (at least diminish your pain) for the moment. But if the person to
whom you lied discovers the untruth, you will have lost that person's trust. Not only that, you
will sense that others are just as likely to lie to you if it is convenient for them, so your trust in
others is undermined. Truth ensures reliable communication and trust for everyone, and so it
has the moral right of way on the Utilitarian path..
Utilitarianism has serious crash risks.
o A utilitarian has to estimate what is good for others. You can try to guess, but then
you're likely to impose your own idea of what's good on others who may not share
your view. Despite your good intentions, you're in danger of slipping into a subtle form
of moral bigotry.
o The Results Route also grounds moral value in foreseen results. How perfectly do
you know the future? What of unforeseen negative results? You're accountable for
those unintended consequences too.
o The flip side of foreseen results is the slippery slope argument: a person may claim
that we should avoid a course of action because it will lead to disastrous results. (The
19th-century thinker Thomas Carlyle argued that extending voting rights beyond
property owners would lead to voting rights for everyone, a risk as dangerous as
shooting Niagara.6) The weakness of this argument is that the future is unknown so
that such assertions are completely unverifiable.7
o The utilitarian seeks the greatest good for the greatest number, but what happens to
the minority?
o Further, if results determine moral value, then to obtain those results, does anything
go as means? You're at risk of doing wrong in order to attain good. (Because of this
risk, some people accuse utilitarians of teaching that the end justifies the means.)
o Another risk rises if results are calculated only in monetary terms: cost-benefit
analysis can produce convincing bottom lines and yet bring about serious wrongs.
6
Thomas Carlyle "Shooting Niagara And After?" Macmillan's Magazine (Edinburgh, Vol. XVI, April 1867)
http://www.efm.bris.ac.uk/het/carlyle/shooting.htm accessed 06 12 2012
7
see James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy (McGraw-Hill, 2003), p. 11.
Moral GPS
38
Alternate Routes for Utilitarianism include the Care Route and many paths of the Duty
Route. The Care Route tells you that people are not interchangeable units of a "greatest
number," but unique and irreplaceable persons. On the Duty Route, the Natural Rights path
draws a moral boundary protecting the minority. Both alternate routes provide moral
direction grounded prior to a decision, not in uncertain estimates of future results.
Traveling the Results Route requires careful following of alternate routes on your Moral GPS.
Make sure you keep it on.
(For more about Utilitarianism, stop in the Tourist Info Center.)
(next)
Moral GPS
39
START
MENU
REST AREA
Choose Route
Operators Manual
Duty
Many ethical theories share the Duty Route. At this point you should look at two of those
theories, Natural Rights and the Kantian Duty Ethic. Those are most likely to help you in
choosing your route on the Moral Highway. Check the Tourist Info Center for other theories.
Natural Rights
Natural Rights theory grounds moral value in the rights that every human person has by
virtue of being human. Rights amount to moral claims that oblige all others to treat a person
with respect and fairness. Since those rights are natural, rather than given by a government,
they are "inalienable" (a person cannot validly renounce them) and "indefeasible" (no one can
validly override them).
Natural rights may be negative or positive. The right to liberty, for instance, is a negative
right since it doesn't oblige anyone to do anything, but rather obliges everyone to refrain from
interfering with your appropriate freedom. A right to education, on the other hand, is a positive
right because it requires that a society provide schools for you.
Negative rights serve well as a moral boundary for the utilitarian theory. The utilitarian seeks
the greatest good for the greatest number, but must not violate the basic rights of the
minority.
Why is Truth important to Natural Rights theory? If a person has a right to liberty, the exercise
of that liberty demands that she is able to base her decisions on reliable information. Untruth,
for instance government misinformation, undermines her right to liberty. Truth has the moral
right of way on the Natural Rights path.
The Natural Rights theory has crash risks.
o First, this theory focuses on individual rights, and so may forget that we're all in this
together. We have responsibilities toward one another as well as rights.
o Second, if all human rights are inalienable and indefeasible, what happens if rights
come into conflict? The theory provides no clear way to resolve conflicts. Does the
stronger person prevail? Again someone is at risk of becoming a Road Menace.
o Rights theory claims that the existence of human rights is self-evident. What do you do
if your rights are not evident to somebody? You'll need to call on another theory that
might be convincing to that person.
o Negative rights have served effectively as moral boundaries, but it is much more
difficult to move people to respond to positive rights.
Alternate routes for the Natural Rights theory need to stress the social character of human
life as the Care Route does, or the positive orientation of other Duty paths like the social
contract theory or discourse ethics. Check those in the Tourist Info Center.
(For more about the Natural Rights Theory, stop in the Tourist Info Center.)
(next)
Moral GPS
40
START
MENU
REST AREA
Choose Route
Kantian Duty Ethic

For Kant, moral value is grounded only in duty or dedication to law. One's entire life is
directed by law, and not by personal inclination or by calculation of results. For Kant, "Law"
means universal moral principles, accessible to reason, that apply equally to all.
The method for identifying such principles is the categorical imperative: "Act only according
to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."8
Here's how it works. You're thinking of telling your "significant other" you were at a business
meeting when you really were somewhere you'd rather she didn't know. Is that morally
acceptable? (Here is our "why is truth important" question again.)
The first step in Kant's method is to ask yourself, "What moral rule would authorize this
action?" Hmmm, you say to yourself. It would have to go something like "You should tell a lie
in order to avoid embarrassment."
The next step is to see if that rule can be made a universal law: "Everyone should always
tell a lie in order to avoid embarrassment." But is there a contradiction in that law? If
everyone should always tell a lie if truth would be embarrassing, then any statement may be
truth or lie, and the whole point of telling a lie is lost. Language becomes meaningless. Truth
is important because any rule permitting untruth is self-contradictory, and so morally wrong.
Since this conclusion is established with the clarity of logic, there can be no exception to it.
So not only does truth have the moral right of way for Kant, it is a moral absolute.
Kant also teaches a moral principle called the "practical imperative." Never treat another
person merely as a means to your own ends, but always also as an end in himself. This
principle echoes the "golden rule," and translates into mutual respect for moral autonomy.
The Kantian Duty Ethic has crash risks. Deliberately excluding personal inclination and
consideration of results just about guarantees that a strict Kantian will be a oneway driver. Since the calculation of moral laws is done by a solitary person in his
own mind, that person risks becoming a moral bigot and a Road Menace. Since
Kant excludes personal inclinations and consideration of results, the only test for validity of
moral laws is the lone person's logic. There is a serious risk that a person will override
common sense and relationships with others, and so do harm (evil) while doing "right."
Finally, Kant's theory lets you generate a set of moral absolutes, but provides no clear way to
deal with a conflict of absolutes. Kant doesnt help us deal with road hazards.
For alternate routes, be sure you select theories that get you out of your own head! Kant's
own Practical Imperative points you toward other people. Follow that direction onto the Care
Route. To check that you're not doing harm by doing "right," keep the Utilitarian path on your
Moral GPS screen. Among other paths on the Duty route, a good alternate is Discourse
Ethics, since that requires that you actively reach out to others in the decision process.
(For more about the Kantian Duty Ethic, stop in the Tourist Info Center.)
(next)
8
Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals trans. James W. Ellington (Hackett, 1993), p. 30.
Moral GPS
41
Some Side Roads
START
MENU
REST AREA
Choose Route
Operators Manual
Some moral talk is about issues that don't help you along your way,
even though they are important in theory.
At this point, you should know about some of these issues.
Remember they are side roads, not major routes. Don't waste much travel time on them.
Absolutism
Moral Philosophers sometimes debate whether certain moral norms apply equally to all
persons in all circumstances. Such absolutes are also called exceptionless norms.
Moral absolutes are ordinarily stated on the "should" level and they are often negative
general norms like "never lie" or "never kill." Such norms can be very helpful as you try to
stay together on the Moral Highway. If a norm can claim to be absolute, then it is very
likely to gain agreement from others as you appeal to their reason and freedom.
The crash risk of absolutism comes when someone attempts to impose that absolute
on others on the "ought" level, regardless of other values at stake in the particular
situation. When the absolutist claims that the norm is "exceptionless," he's saying that there's
only one way to go: follow this map and you don't even have to keep your eye on the road.
A comical TV ad showed a driver serenely following instructions from his GPS, and "turn
right" took him through the plate-glass window of a crowded caf. That's the main crash risk
of absolutismignoring the actual situation. Remember you're not the "eye in the sky." Watch
where you're going!
The risk becomes a threat if the person uses absolutist claims to override the moral
autonomy of other persons. Now you've got a righteous Road Menace on the loose, barreling
toward a collisionor worse.
Absolutism is a side road because it is not useful on the Moral Highway. Absolute or not, a
norm will have to merit the consensus or at least understanding of all involved.
Relativism
Some claim that all moral norms and values are valid only within particular cultures
(cultural relativism) or times (historical relativism), so that we cannot challenge a norm or
value from outside that culture or time. Some even claim that there are no valid moral norms;
there are only particular decisions in particular situations (moral particularism).
Granted, such views respect the differences among people and situations. But they makes
traveling the Moral Highway nearly impossible. There have to be some moral values and
insights held in common, simply because we share the same planet and travel the same
Moral Highway. People have to make room for each other if the Highway is not to be jammed
with wreckage from collisions. So some norms need to transcend particular cultures to enable
people to travel togetherat least the "rules of the road."
Moral Relativism is not a useful theory for your Moral GPS. It's a side road.
(next)
Moral GPS
42
Subjectivism
START
MENU
REST AREA
Choose Route
Language is the vehicle with which you travel the Moral Highway, remember? Some moral
philosophers (not too many any longer) hold that a moral claim ("You ought to slow down!")
expresses nothing more than a person's inner feeling or attitude ("The speed you're driving
makes me uncomfortable.") This view is called "subjectivism."
Then a moral claim could never oblige another another person. "I'm sorry you feel that way,"
he could say as he floored the accelerator. You would have no basis for objecting.
The philosophers who drove up this side road did so because the only "clout" they
could envision for a statement had to be a matter of factsomething that could be
empirically demonstrated. That's pretty hard to do with a moral claim. They failed to
see that moral claims occur in living human relationships and rise from the ties that
human beings have to each other (obligations).
Subjectivism does not help you to travel the Moral Highway with others. It's a side road, and a
dead-end road at that.
"Objectivism"
The term "objectivism" has two meanings. It can refer to a stance also called "moral realism"
that is closely related to the Natural Law theory. Also, the theorist Ayn Rand titles her egoist
ethic "Objectivism."
In its first sense, objectivism holds that moral rightness or wrongness is an intrinsic
quality of certain acts, independent of what the person acting believes. Moral claims
are true or false, regardless of personal opinion. So certain acts are objectively
good, such as helping the sick, while certain acts are objectively (or "intrinsically")
evil, such as murder. Such "intrinsically evil" acts are always evil, regardless of
circumstances. Hence objectivism links closely to absolutism, and shares the same crash
risks as absolutism. On the Moral Highway, objectivism may be helpful in identifying moral
values that are likely to bring people's thinking together, but it also presents a dangerous
temptation to moral bigotry.
A moderate form of Objectivism holds that moral claims are more or less compelling,
regardless of personal opinions, depending on the soundness of the reasons supporting the
claims. This form of Objectivism avoids the risk of moral bigotry by recognizing that moral
claims are always appeals to the reason and freedom of other persons.
The second meaning of "Objectivism" is a form of Egoism, which is one form of the Results
Route, with all its crash risks and recommended alternate routes. Ethical egoism, of course,
includes respect for the moral autonomy of others.
Some advocates of this "Objectivism," however, seem to consider the pursuit of self-interest
the only moral purpose that has any validity. Such a stand can turn a person into a one-way
driver, a traffic obstruction. Some advocates of "Objectivism" stress the individual so much
that they risk forgetting that we're all in this together, and so risk turning themselves into
Road Menaces.
Moral GPS
43
Determinism
An important philosophic debate over the centuries has been whether a person's decisions
are free or predetermined by causes beyond that person's control. This is important for
ethics, because if people's behavior is not under their own control, then they cannot be
morally responsible or autonomous. This position is called "determinism."
While this debate is fascinating, it is not helpful for driving the Moral Highway. Determinism
denies (or ignores) what the Moral Highway must affirm: moral autonomy and mutual respect
for moral autonomy. On the Moral Highway, carry on as if people are free.
Nevertheless, it is possible for people's autonomy to be unduly constrained by circumstances.
Such circumstances should not be lightly accepted, but need to be fixed.
(next)
Moral GPS
44
START
MENU
REST AREA
Choose Route
Operators Manual
C. Areas to Avoid
(Negative Norms / Moral Boundaries)
So far, setting your Moral GPS has required you to think positively:
What are your goals?
What are your values?
What moral theories support your values?
You've focused on the road ahead.
Now, take a quick glance to the roadside.
What do you see?
Yup, a guardrail. And beyond that? A ditch.
Negative moral norms are like guardrails on the Moral Highway. They don't
help you set your goals. They don't tell you what values to seek. They warn you of areas to
avoid, places you don't want to go, like ditches.
Many familiar moral norms are negative norms. Here are samples from the Ten
Commandments:
You shall not murder.
Neither shall you commit adultery.
Neither shall you steal.
(NRSV translation of Deuteronomy 5:17-19)
It is important to program such "areas to avoid" into your Moral GPS, especially as
experience alerts you to the more subtle ditches you can slide into. (go to MyGPS)
If you come to a road hazard and see that one alternative is an area to avoid, you know that
you're really facing a challenge to moral integrity. Your path is simplerthough it may not be
easier.
What if you come to a road hazard and realize that all alternatives are areas to
avoid? "What?" you think. "That can't happen on the Moral Highway, can it?"
Sorry, it can. Circumstances can force you into a ditch. Talk about a challenge
to steer carefully! Your challenge: survive with the least damage.
DON'T CONCENTRATE on negative norms in your Moral GPS! That's like driving with
your eyes fixed on the guardrail! You won't make much progress, and you're likely to become
a traffic obstruction.
Negative norms have a crash risk. Unfortunately, many stretches of the
Moral Highway are crowned roads, sometimes icy, with ditches on both sides.
If you steer away from one negative norm (e.g. "never lie") you risk skidding
off into the opposite ditch (e.g. "never hurt someone's feelings needlessly").
Better keep your focus on the road ahead. Think positive!
But don't ignore those guardrailskeep them in your peripheral vision.
(next)
Moral GPS
45
START
MENU
REST AREA
Choose Route
Operators Manual
D. Detours
(Around Road Hazards)
Okay, now you've mapped out some basic Main Routes and Alternates.
Now you need to map out detours. Just in case.
A detour isn't just another alternate route.
A detour is an alternate way of thinking about choosing a route.
(You'll see later that a detour is also an alternate way of staying together.)
Do you remember Octogenarian Millie? Two physicians, Dr. R.

and Dr. D., represented two mutually exclusive alternatives in
the debate about care of the critically ill. With Millie, you're
driving into a moral dilemma that's right in the middle of a
congested area.
Remember to check that there are real values on both alternatives, so you've got a real
moral dilemma and not a challenge to moral integrity. You do. So there's no simple way out of
the dilemma.
Check: Is there another way? Sometimes what looks like a dilemma is not really a
fork in the road. There may be other choices available. There may be other ways to
understand available choices so that a compromisea middle wayis possible. (For
instance, Dr. D. might consider the traditional "double-effect" principle to reach a
workable compromise by increasing Millie's medication so it better controls her pain
even though as a side effect it may hasten her death.)
You're at a dinner party, sitting between your friends Jean and John.
Jean energetically supports "pro-choice" political candidates. John
thinks abortion is a terrible evil. You've tried to steer conversation
away from that topic, but you fail. You want to keep your friends from
clobbering each other. Think. Can you re-frame the issue in order to
avoid a collision? Jean is focused on public policy. John is focused on
a particular action. Do their concerns have to collide? Or are they on
different levels?
Unfortunately, the Moral Highway doesn't provide too many ready-made detours like the
"double effect" principle. Often you will have to invent your detour. To do that, think:
- Is this really a dilemma, or is there another way?
- Can we re-frame this issue? Look at it from another perspective?
To ask these questions, you need two special qualities of mind: critical questioning and
creativity. These qualities are helpful for anyone on the Moral Highway. For a leader, they
are essential.
(next)
Moral GPS
46
START
MENU
REST AREA
go to Flow Chart
Operators Manual
Fourth Step: GO!

Finally!
Like a teen in Driver Ed, youre probably fidgeting after all this time just sitting there
learning the maps and controls. Lets Go! Lets Go!
Whoa, there. Easy, now. Driving the Moral Highway isnt a fun sport; its a
responsibility that you have toward everyone else on the Highway.
Youve taken the time to locate yourself in the moral universe. Youve set your personal goals
and youve embraced the shared goals that make for safe and smooth travel on the Moral
Highway. Youve examined the map of moral routes and you understand how to keep your
balance among competing values and theories. Now youre ready to apply all that you have
learned and discerned.
Applying moral values and theories is a special challenge. Just as you cant drive a car safely
by keeping your eyes on the roadmap, so you cant travel the Moral Highway focused on
abstract values and theories. You have to keep your eyes on the road. You have to be alert
to the particular circumstances surrounding your decisions. You need skill to maneuver safely
through dilemmas and potential collisions. You may need to help others learn how to travel
together without colliding with each other. Then, of course, you have to make decisions.
No, its not a fun sport. Driving the Moral Highway is a challenge. Stay alert and be
considerate of others.
Eyes on the Road

Steer Carefully
Try to Stay Together
Decide!
Moral GPS
47
START
MENU
REST AREA
Go!
Operators Manual
Eyes on the Road

WARNING
You are NOT the "eye in the sky." You are in a particular place at a particular time with
particular people, like it or not. That is what you have to deal with.
Moral values can seem very clear to you--in the abstract. You may think you're a person of
principle because you stand for definite valuesin the abstract. You may staunchly affirm
absolute moral valuesin the abstract. Good for you. Give yourself a pat on the back.
The problem is that moral decisions aren't abstract. Moral decisions are messy. If a
moral decision seems completely clear to you, WAKE UP! You're probably dozing at
the wheel! Don't blindly follow abstract instructions from your Moral GPS and turn right
into a ditch! Or collide with another vehicle. Keep your eyes on the road or you'll crash.
That doesn't mean that you ignore your Moral GPS. Your Moral GPS maps out the Moral
Highway routes for you. It helps you see where you're coming from and where you seek to
go. It helps you understand where others are coming from, too. You've programmed your
values into your Moral GPS, and you know the theories that can ground your values.
Now, can you apply those values and theories? Can you drive with your Moral GPS?
You've seen that moral values are on the "should" level. That means in practice that values
have the moral right of way, so drive according to your values, seeking your goals.
Be alert: road conditions may call on you to yield that right of way. You may
approach a dangerous intersection where competing values are at stake. You'll need
to cooperate with other drivers to avoid a collision and see everyone safely on his
way. You may approach a road hazard where you have to choose one value at the
expense of another. You'll need to steer carefully to avoid a crash. Traffic obstructions
may slow your efforts, and you'll need to help them get up to speedbut be careful that you
don't turn yourself into a Road Menace. Yes, and you may need to drive defensively if a Road
Menace threatens you and your fellow travelers.
You need good judgment to turn a "should" into an "ought." Watch road conditions. What
values are at stake here and now? Do road conditions require that I yield the moral right
of way in favor of another value? Be ready to go. Be ready to yield. Be ready to help
others.
Moral GPS
48
Be alert for the other travelers close to you on the Moral Highway. Any move you make is
likely to affect them, and so your decision ought to take them into account. In fact, you may
need to include those people in the decision process, for they may be stakeholders in
your decision. Ask yourself two questions:
First, how closely involved is a person in the issue to be decided? The more closely
involved another person is, the stronger is your obligation to include that person in the
decision-making process.
Second, how seriously is a person likely to be affected by the decision? The more
seriously affected another person is likely to be, the stronger is your obligation to
include that person in the decision-making process. Future generations may be
affected by your decision (for instance, if its related to the environment), and so their
potential interests must be included in your considerations.
Even if a stakeholder is not so closely involved nor so seriously affected as to be included in
the decision process, everyone affected by your decision deserves to be informed of the
decision and the reasons that support it. Open lines of communication with them. Be
prepared to hold yourself accountable.
To My GPS
(next)
Moral GPS
49
START
MENU
Steer Carefully
REST AREA
Go!
Operators Manual
YOU are responsible for steering carefully as you travel your route on the Moral
Highway. At this point your Moral GPS is concerned with what you can do when a
road hazard comes up, so you don't crash. Next, your Moral GPS will help you work
with others to stay together and avoid collisions.
Check the Traffic Around You.

Remember that you're not alone on the road. Be aware of where others are on the road
around youwhere are they coming from? Where are they going? How might they affect
your decisions? How might your decisions affect them?
Maybe you don't have to work with others to make a particular decision. You're the driver. But
it would be reckless to make a turn without thinking how your action will affect others or how
others' actions may affect you. Anyone who would be affected by your action has a stake in
your decision. You need to steer so that you and your fellow travelers can move smoothly
and safely on the Moral Highway.
Managing Moral Dilemmas

The most common road hazard you'll meet is the moral dilemma. You must choose between
alternatives. Each alternative is supported by strong values and good reasons. You can't
choose both; you must sacrifice one. How do you steer through such a thing?
1. Make sure you've really got a dilemma. Not every moral dilemma comes neatly marked
as a fork in the road. And not everything that looks like a fork in the road is a moral dilemma.
Make sure your alternatives involve real values, and that there really are good reasons
supporting opposed alternatives. If not, you dont have a moral dilemma. Youre heading for a
crash. (See the Tourist Info Center.)
Your twins are starting middle school, and theyre pretty smart. You have a decent job,
but you know your income from it wont pay for their college education. The nearby
university offers an MBA program you can take in the evenings after work. If you get your
MBA, youll be able to get a much better job that will pay for your childrens college. But if you
do that, youll have to sacrifice your time with your children now, at this important time in their
lives. Youve got a dilemma.
You're president of Occidental Widgets. You've got stiff competition from Eastern Exemplary
Widgets, and they've just put out a new high-efficiency widget. Your new high-efficiency
widget just needs your go-ahead and it will be in production. But there's one little problem. If
someone drops the new widget so it lands on its backsidea one-in-a-thousand
chance--the thing can explode and seriously burn anyone near it. Fixing that before
production will take months, and you'll lose market share. Do you have a dilemma?
Or is this a challenge to moral integrity? (Do you want to check on the rest of this
story?) Later well consider what to do if you know someones heading the wrong way.
Moral GPS
50
2. Sort out the values involved. You've looked in your mirror and you've worked out a
personal hierarchy of values, right? Now examine the dilemma you face. Identify what values
are at stake. Then use your hierarchy of values to sort them out. You may be able to see right
away which alternative is better (or perhaps less bad). If you need to evaluate further,
examine the theories that support the opposing values of the dilemmaweigh the strengths,
crash risks, and alternate routes of each.
(to MyGPS)
3. Check for a Detour. Take a step back; take a deep breath. Clear your mind. Think: are
these contrary alternatives the only choices that you have? Unleash your creativity: can you
imagine a "best of all possible worlds" that erases this conflict? Can you reframe the dilemma
to look even a little like that perfect world? Can you find or invent another way?
Your Moral GPS can help you recognize a moral dilemma and distinguish it from a
challenge to moral integrity. Your Moral GPS can help you sort through the values at stake in
each alternative, and it offers other strategies as well. Your Moral GPS reminds you: include
goals and ideals for all. Your Moral GPS may even help you spot a detour that preserves all
values at stake. But your Moral GPS cannot tell you which alternative to take. You're the
driver. You have to decide.
Steering Through Congested Areas

Keep alert in congested areas. Social dilemmas"hot issues"are risky places to travel.
Why? Any intersection can be dangerous because people with sharply opposed opinions are
more apt to collide. Congested areas also tend to bring out the worst Road Menaces. Take
special care to be courteous in congested areas.
However, a congested area provides excellent training in moral readiness. Seek out
responsible voices on all sides of a public controversy. Ask yourself, where is each voice
coming from? How does each voice reflect what everyone on the Moral Highway should
seek? Compare these with your own "Go Home" settings. You may gain insight.
What if you face a moral dilemma in a congested area? You come home to find your
spouse unconscious on the floor.9 Emergency medical efforts on the scene and at
the hospital fail to revive her. "Severe brain damage," you are told. Life is
sustainedbut by respirator and feeding tubes. Weeks pass with no change. Do you
cling to hope? Or do you "face facts" and ask that the respirator and tubes be
removed? You face a terrible dilemma, a lose-lose proposition that is enough to
throw your life into a skid. People you don't even know may react, whatever decision
you make. You may be sued by advocacy groups. You may see yourself on national
television, hiding your face from the glare of prying lights.
If you face a moral dilemma in a congested area, seek all the advice and help you can
get! Use the literature and resources that the controversy has generated. Your Moral GPS
will alert you to the dangers. It can help you sort through the values at stake. It can help you
understand where the different views in this social dilemma are coming from. Talk it through
with people whose judgment you trust.
Your Moral GPS can help, but ultimately you have to decide. You need the support of
trustworthy family, friends and advisors, but ultimately you have to decide. Then your Moral
See the driving practice, case 1.

9
Moral GPS
51
GPS can help clarify good reasons supporting your decision so that others may understand
if they are open to understanding. You have a rough road ahead.
(to MyGPS)
(next)
Moral GPS
52
START
MENU
REST AREA
Go!
Operators Manual
Try to Stay Together

Some decisions are the responsibility of many people with different
moral perspectives. That's the formula for a dangerous intersection.
Your challenge is to foster mutual understanding,
perhaps to achieve consensus.
Now comes the biggest challenge for your Moral GPS. You're not the driver any more. Now
you're trying to help many people map out a path that all can share, even though you're all
coming from different places and heading in different directions.
Your challenge amounts to redesigning the road! Here is an intersection where
people confront each other, and you need to transform it into a traffic circle where
people make way for each other by mutual yielding. If that's not enough, maybe
you need to head for the Rest Area, stop to think carefully through the decision
you all face. You're not the sole driver, but you can be a leader.
What moves can you make to help people stay together making a tough decision?
The Moral GPS provides a six-step strategy for helping people stay together:
1. Focus on the need to act.
2. Keep your eyes on the road (the difference between "should" and "ought.")
3. Remember the Rules of the Road (mutual respect for moral autonomy)
4. Work through the Values at stake.
5. Work through the Theories supporting the values
6. Ask for consensus.
You'll also need tips on helping traffic obstructions and dealing with a Road Menace, as well
as how to deal with someone whos just plain wrong. What you need most of all your Moral
GPS can't provide: your own good judgment. Good luck!
(to MyGPS)
First move: Focus on the Need to Act.

People have argued interminably, and sometimes violently, about abstract moral statements
(the should level). Moral opinions can be polarized on this level, creating gridlock that
prevents real communication and cooperation. On the Moral Highway, such argument is a
luxury you cant afford, because you have to keep moving. Try to reframe the decision
process. Your aim is not to arrive at a winner among opposing viewpoints. Rather, focus
on the practical issue or problem on which you must act. If you succeed in getting people to
suspend their opposing viewpoints for the moment and rather focus on what shall we do,
you can release peoples creativity and may even arrive at a decision that not only solves a
problem but transforms it.
(to MyGPS)
Second move: Remember: Keep your Eyes on the Road.
The differing values people bring to the intersection are on the "should" level, abstract and
general ("eye in the sky"). But you have to act. The intersection is on the practical level where
abstract values can cause real collisions unless everyone watches road conditions carefully.
Moral GPS
What ought to be done can emerge only once those conditions have been taken fully into
account.
53
Remember sitting between Jean and John at that dinner party? John was staunchly "pro-life,"
Jean "pro-choice." You try to point out the difference between public policy and the act of
abortion, but John says, "No exceptions! Abortion ought to be illegal!" You might ask John,
"How would outlawing abortion actually work in practice?" (You might know that abortion
rates appear to be the same whether legal or illegal in different countries, but abortion-related
maternal deaths tend to be more frequent where abortion is illegal.10) "John, would outlawing
abortion really protect life?"
Be cautious in making such a move. Your purpose is not to take sides in the controversy, but
to remind people that road conditions must be considered if people are going to make a
responsible decision. In John's case, road conditions suggest the value he seeks, life, would
not necessarily be served by a "pro-life" law. (You don't need to remind him of other values at
stake in that issue. Jean will take care of that.) "Should" is not "ought."
(to MyGPS)
Third move: Remember the Rules of the Road.
These are the basic rules for everyone driving the Moral Highway. They're especially
important approaching a dangerous intersection. Basic consideration for others requires:
1. Stay in lane: Say what you mean and be consistent.
2. Listen respectfully. Dont interrupt or ridicule. Seek to understand, not refute.
3. If you disagree, give good reasons that other persons can understand.
4. Signal your turns: you're allowed to change your mind, but give good reasons to explain
what convinced you to change.
5. Dont force anyone off the road! Everyone has a right to be heard and to question. (If
you notice that a stakeholder is excluded from participation in decision-making, do what
you can to bring that person into the process. That includes traffic obstructions.)
Gently remind everyone that the first task is to understand each other in order to act
together. Moral decision-making is not a zero-sum game where one person wins his way and
all others lose. If that happens, everybody has lost because a Road Menace has driven all of
you into a ditch, himself included. A moral decision has to be cooperative, ideally by
consensus. Consensus, though, takes serious work. Your Moral GPS can help. (to MyGPS)
Fourth Move: Work through the Values at Stake.
Language is everyone's vehicle on the Moral Highway. As each person expresses her point
of view, try to discern where that person is coming from, especially what values are at stake
for her. What is she seeking? (Think back to what you seek in yourselfvirtues. Others may
share them and want to act accordingly.) Include goals and ideals for all.
Fire destroyed a derelict corner building near an old city neighborhood that was "up and
coming." The property lapsed to city ownership. What should it be used for? George wanted
a manufacturing firm, for the property was inexpensive and close to main roads and
suppliers. Jessica wanted a park to enhance the neighborhood. Martin wanted a parking lot
for city vehicles, since the land belonged to the city. Sophie wanted a community center with
social services for low-income people in nearby neighborhoods.
10
New York Times, October 11, 2007.

Moral GPS
54
You may find important values in common. Here, no one wants the land left vacant. That's
a start. You can build from there.
Next, ensure that each person understands what values are important to others.
George seeks economic efficiency for his firm. Jessica seeks an attractive area for her part of
the city. Martin wants city resources to meet city needs. Sophie wants better services for
people nearby. Each can then modify his or her proposal so others' concerns are
safeguarded. The manufacturing facility, for instance, could be designed attractively.
It may be possible to forge a compromise agreement based on values, even though people
are coming from different directions. You may be able to facilitate the group's forming a
hierarchy of values. Or you may find a detour that preserves most values at stake. (In this
case, an acceptable solution was an attractive child care center and small park.)11 If values
still conflict, however, you have to make a further move. Remember that a value is the "what"
that one seeks. The next move is to ask the "why" question.
(to MyGPS)
Fifth Move: Work through the Theories that Support the Values
From programming your Moral GPS, you're acquainted with the "main routes" on the Moral
Highwayprincipal moral theories. You can probably recognize the theory supporting each
person's view. (If you can't, a polite question may help make it clear: "I understand, but why
is it that you think so?) Then use your knowledge of crash risks and alternate routes to
help the person see things from a different perspective.
You might ask George, "Why is this a good location for your firm?" He might respond, "Land
cost is low and it's near our suppliers. Overhead can be reduced." Thats the value.
Recognize the implied theory? It's in his company's self-interest: egoism. Think of its crash
risks and alternate routes. Then ask a question that may help George to see beyond his
particular view: "George, what do you think would be best for the entire community?" That's a
utilitarian question, and it may open other alternatives in George's mind.
If you use your knowledge of moral theories to help each person step back from her particular
view/value and consider other views, you help prevent a collision. If you succeed in helping
people to see the situation from many points of view, you can help foster compromise. If you
enable people to evaluate their own views (their assumptions, theoretical grounds, crash
risks and alternatives), you may even lead toward a creative consensus.
That's skillful driving on the Moral Highway. It's also known as leadership.
(to MyGPS)
Sixth Move: Ask for Consensus.

"The rubber hits the road" when you move from talking about values and theories to facing
the question, "Okay, so shall we do X?" Morality, after all, isnt about theories; its about
action.
That question moves your decision-making process toward closure, and this move is
essential. Otherwise the cooperative traffic circle you just worked so hard to achieve
can degenerate into endless wheel spinning.
Now youre moving toward decision. That's another process in your Moral GPS. At this point,
it's essential to be sure everyone is comfortable with moving into that process. Have you
11
This process took an unfortunate turn before it was resolved. See below.
Moral GPS
55
reached a compromise or consensus? If not, have you at least reached mutual
understanding, so that those whose views may not be acted on can appreciate the merits of
the prevailing view? If so, you've at least averted a collision. Well done.
(to MyGPS)
Helping Traffic Obstructions
The process you just reviewed assumes that all participants in the process are
mature, morally autonomous persons. The strategies you have programmed into
your Moral GPS are designed to help adjust your driving on the Moral Highway to
people with widely diverse moral perspectives. But you will meet another kind of
challenge on the Moral Highway: people who need help in getting their own moral capacity up
to speed. You're likely to meet three kinds of traffic obstructions: rookie drivers lacking moral
maturity, one-way drivers blind to alternate routes, and stalled vehicles who come to a dead
stop at the point of decision (that's addressed later).
Youll know if youve got a traffic obstruction to deal with. Efforts to reach a tough decision
stall. Tension builds. Tempers start to flare.
Time to take a break.
More than anything else now, you need patience. Take time for a little beer diplomacy12 with
a person who is blocking consensus. Back away from the issue, relax, and encourage that
person to share his or her story. Listen for clues to the persons moral assumptions and
values. You may gently lead back to the issue: Oh, I understand better why you feel that way
about this issue. That lets the person know that you empathize. It also quietly implies that his
assumptions are personal rather than universal and absolute. Then maybe you can share
your own story, so he can understand why you take the position that you do.
You may not change the persons mind. But you may at least help him understand and
respect the views of others so that you can work together to resolve the issue.
Once you have a basic rapport with your traffic obstruction, you may be able to use more
specific strategies to bring him up to speed.
(to MyGPS)
Helping Rookie Drivers (See also Tourist Info Center)
As people mature, the way they think changes, not only what they think. In any group, there
are likely to be widely varying ways of thinking. That poses a challenge for working together.
There are patterns of moral maturing in people. You can use your understanding of these
patterns to help people to understand each other. Different theories of development agree on
these points:
- There is a consistent pattern of moral maturing in people.
- There are steps of development (a person matures step by step, without skipping).
- A person's moral focus is the self on the lowest steps, the group on the intermediate
steps, and all humankind on the highest steps.
- A person on an intermediate step can understand the lower step, but not the higher.
- There are ways to prompt growth from one step to the next.
In the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s in the United States, some people took part in "civil
disobedience," deliberately breaking laws that they judged to be morally wrong. Some of
The reference is to President Obamas meeting with Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., and
Sgt. James Crowley, July 30, 2009.
12
Moral GPS
56
those people on the lower steps of moral development went along with civil disobedience
because they thought it was fun (self-focused). People on the highest steps took part for the
sake of basic principles of justice for all humankind.
But others, people on the middle steps, got angry. Breaking the law was wrong, period, they
thought. These people interpreted the actions of those on the highest steps as selfindulgence (the lowest step). You can see how that kind of rookie driver can entangle efforts
to reach mutual understanding.
Before a rookie driver can understand your strategies for fostering understanding, he has to
grow morally to the point that he can relate to that way of thinking. The way to prompt
growth is comparatively simple.
- Just listendont try to refute. Try to establish real communication with the rookie.
- Help the rookie driver to listen to others points of view.
- Ensure that those other points of view include models of addressing the dilemma at
the next highest step to the developmental stage of the rookie.
- Then focus on a practical decision that must be made: What should we do?
If there is disagreement, then your practical decision involves a dilemma that cannot be
solved from just one point of view. Try to get your rookie to see things from another point of
view. For instance, what if it were his group that faced the discrimination of the 1950s? What
would he have done? The rookie might not be able to understand civil disobedience, but
maybe he can understand legal public demonstrations aimed at legally changing
discriminatory laws. Check the Tourist Information Center for more on helping rookie drivers.
(to MyGPS)
Helping One-Way Drivers

One-way drivers think exclusively in terms of one moral theory. They are blind to the crash
risk of their own theory and they can't see alternate routes as anything but ditches.
A one-way driver may simply be a rookie. Try the strategy for helping a rookie to grow.
But a one-way driver may just be deeply committed to his way of thinking. That's not a bad
thing, but he is going to slow efforts to reach consensus.This one-way driver can understand
other views, but he rejects themat least for himself.
To help such a person enlarge his moral vision, it may work to invite him to confront a
practical dilemma that not only can't be solved within his theory, but that his theory actually
causes. Presenting a practical dilemma calls upon the person to recognize the difference
between should and ought. Remember John at the dinner party and his moral absolutism. If
he can see that doing right according to his theory actually may cause harm to the very value
it claims to support, his vision may open to other perspectives. 13
(to MyGPS)
13An
example of One-Way driving is the May 17, 2010, action of Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix,
excommunicating a Catholic nun and administrator of St. Josephs Hospital in Phoenix for approving an abortion
on a woman seriously ill with pulmonary hypertension who was 11 weeks pregnant. The end does not justify
the means," the bishop said, excluding Consequentialist thinking. He went on to say The Catholic Church will
continue to defend life and proclaim the evil of abortion without compromise. A Consequentialist perspective
would recognize irony here, in that the bishops stance would likely result in death for both mother and fetus.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10051712.html (accessed 04 14 2011. Note the one-way orientation
of this source.)
Moral GPS
57
How can you deal with a Road Menace?

Remember how to recognize a Road Menace? He fails to respect the moral autonomy of
others. Either he doesn't consider others morally important (the unethical egoist) or hes so
sure he's right that if youre not going his way, youve got no right to be on the road (the moral
bigot). He'll interrupt others, monopolize discussion, shout others down, refute them before
they can express their ideas. If you face a Road Menace, you know you've got to deal with
him first, or all your efforts to reach a resolution will end in collision.
The one-way driver we just met could turn out to be a moral bigot. If he dismisses other views
for himself, he's acting like a one-way driver. But if he rejects the validity of other views for
everybody, watch out. You're dealing with a Road Menace.
You have to deal with the Road Menace. Remember, he's a threat to the safety of everyone
on the Moral Highway. In fact, by violating the mutual trust on which the Moral Highway runs,
he's a threat to all moral life. Yes, the Road Menace is acting in an evil way. That may be
obvious if the Road Menace is an unethical egoist. But if he's a moral bigot, your challenge is
greater because he is claiming to be good and righteous. Beware!
The best way to deal with a Road Menace is to pretend he isn't one. Pretend he's a traffic
obstruction. Gently remind him of the rules of the road. Use the strategies designed to foster
growth in people's moral vision (Listening to others, practical dilemmas that can't be solved in
the person's current stance, plus models for other, more adequate, points of view). Be
gentle. Sharp confrontation can turn a moral bigot into an aspiring martyror suicide bomber.
In effect, you are inviting the Road Menace to rejoin the compact of mutual trust and respect
that is the foundation of the Moral Highway.
In the present era of transition into multicultural awareness, one kind of Road Menace may
be acting out of a kind of moral fear. In the face of perceived moral disintegration around him,
this person clings to a firm, but particular, set of values he considers universal. Therefore he
sees other moral perspectives as a threat, even a demonic threat. What may best help this
person is not just a reminder of the rules of the road, but a thoughtful probing of the basis of
those rulesa moral foundation that can claim universal validity in a multicultural world.
The essential character of the Road Menace is the will to override the moral autonomy of
others. The Road Menace tries to use force, moral violence. That may be psychological
intimidation, political pressure, religious authority, legal leverage or physical violence. Drive
defensively: you are under attack.
Do not respond in kind. That puts you in a tit-for-tat exchange that will only aggravate the
impending collision. Rather,
- Respect the Road Menace as a person. He may be mistaken, he may be misguided;
but he is not necessarily evil.
- Focus on the essential, shared values at stake in the conflict. Dont worry about your
own side winning or losing. Remember, you could be wrong. Do not be distracted by
insults or inflammatory side issues.
- Do not cooperate; do not assent to his arguments. Gently insist that he listen to others.
- If possible, reorganize the decision process to ensure that others arent stifled and the
Road Menace is required to permit others to voice their opinions.
You may want to study the methods of nonviolent resistance. (See Operators Manual.)
Moral GPS
58
If that fails, brace for a collision. You may have to resort to some kind of force yourself to
resist the Road Menace. Yes, your Moral GPS will tell you you're "off route" and warn you of
the threatening ditch. Apply the guides for limiting damage to moderate your response.
Effective resistance to a Road Menace is aimed to bring him back into honest dialog.
That's the purpose of your resistance. Try to get everyone out of the ditch and back onto the
Moral Highway!
Remember the plot of land near an "up and coming" city neighborhood? There's a twist to the
story. George turned out to be a closet Road Menace. His firm decided to bypass the effort
toward consensus. They secretly tried to manipulate the city zoning process. (That's an
example of the "unethical egoist" Road Menace.) The others caught on and did a little
political groundwork of their own. The showdown came at the City Council, where George
suddenly discovered he didn't have the votes he thought he had! That got him back into the
discussion, opening the path toward compromise.
You take a huge risk in dealing with a Road Menace. You risk becoming a Road Menace
yourself. To minimize that risk, there is one thing you must always keep in mind. Post this
reminder in every available nook of your Moral Highway vehicle:
(to MyGPS)
I could be wrong
But then, maybe the other guy is wrong.
How can you deal with someone whos just plain wrong?
Yes, youre constantly reminding yourself that you could be wrong so that you dont skid into
becoming a Road Menace.
But what happens if youre right, and the other guy is wrongreally wrong? What do you do
then?
First, how do you know that youre right and the other guy is wrong?
Think back to the sad story of Occidental Widgets. Did the company have a
dilemma, or did they have a challenge to moral integrity? We know from hindsight
that the choice OW made was wrong. Think what a difference it would have made
had someone with foresightwith her Moral GPS onopened the OW executives
eyes to the full moral context of their decision. But how would she have been able to do that?
An action is clearly wrong only if it crosses a moral boundary. Otherwise it may be imprudent,
unwise, less than ideal, but you cant call it wrong. (Youve worked through issues of
prudence, wisdom, and ideals in your efforts to steer together through tough decisions.) A
moral boundary is based in acceptable moral norms. You know a course of action is wrong if
it violates acceptable moral norms without extremely strong and convincing justification.
Occidental Widgets deliberately placed its customers at risk for serious injury and death. That
clearly crossed a boundary grounded in the basic value of life and the basic norm to do no
needless harm. OW did that for the sake of its own short-term profitsand placing short-term
profits at risk does not clearly cross a boundary based in any but the narrowest economic
theory.
Moral GPS
Second, does the other guy know hes wrong, or does he think his action is OK?
59
If the other guy knows hes wrong and plans to go ahead anyway, youve got a Road Menace
on your hands. Treat him like a Road Menace.
But what if he thinks his course of action is OK, but youre sure hes wrong? First, remember
that not everyone understands moral norms in the same way. Your understanding could be
limited. If possible, turn to others for their insights.
If he thinks hes OK, he probably has reasons for thinking that way. The OW executives had
their reasonsshort-term consequentialist thinking expressed in cost-benefit analysis.
Unfortunately, they were one-way drivers and failed even to consider much more important
(non-monetary) values at stake in their decision.
If someone is wrong but thinks hes OK, then his reasons are inadequate. Your move is to
ask himin a non-confrontational wayto explain his reasons for that course of action.
Third, help the other guy to enlarge his moral perspective.
Once you know his reasons, you can use your understanding of moral theories, crash risks
and alternate routes to help him evaluate his own reasons. (Note: not to refute his reasons,
but to help him see better.)
Further, help him to imagine himself as someone affected by his course of action. Would he
want to be treated the way he plans to treat them? (The Golden Rule.)
The OW executives would have benefited from considerations from, for example, Natural
Rights theory about the overriding value of life. It might have made a difference had an Ethic
of Care perspective drawn them to think how their customers would experience the impact of
their decisionespecially customers who would suffer serious injury or the tragic death of
loved ones. If the OW executives still remained stuck in their cost-benefit ditch, they might
have been nudged back onto the Moral Highway by long-term consequentialist thinking: OW
might profit in the short term, but if OW customers are injured or killed by the product, people
will henceforth avoid OW products and the company will suffer in the long run. (And it did!)
A caution about Absolutes.
Some people might be tempted to declare another guy wrong on the basis of a moral
absolute. Remember that Absolutism is not useful on the Moral Highway. Absolute or not, a
norm will have to merit peoples consensus or at least understanding. Dont try to use
absolutes as a battering ramyoull just turn yourself into a Road Menace. Always repect
and foster the moral autonomy of another personeven if hes wrong.
(to MyGPS)
(next)
Moral GPS
60
START
MENU
Decide
Are you ready to make a decision?
That's easy, isn't it? You just decide, and that's it, right?
REST AREA
Go!
Operators Manual
You wish.
Now it's decision time. So far you have been in dialog with people who will be affected by this
decision (stakeholders). All have been able to express the values they seek in the situation.
All have expressed the areas they want to avoid. All have heard and (you hope) understood
others' concerns. There may even be a basic consensus.
Now you must choose. The Moral GPS provides a four-step decision process:
First step: Locate the deciding authority
Second step: Lay out the options.
Third step: Decide
Fourth step: Accept Accountability
Another issue you may need to address:
Dealing with Decision Paralysis
First step: locate the deciding authority
"Authority" in a decision has two dimensions. First, the decider must be "authorized," in a
position to carry out the decision and make it happen. Second, the decider must have "moral
authority," so that all stakeholders trust in the decider's fairness.
Authorization depends upon the context of the decision. If you are in an established
organization, that organization's bylaws identify how and by whom organizational decisions
are to be made. If you are in an informal group, that group must determine for itself how and
by whom the group decision will be reached and carried out. It is important to make that
determination before addressing the issue itself.
Consider the principle of subsidiarity in locating the deciding authority for a decision.
According to that principle, decisions should be made by the persons closest to the issue to
be decided as long as those persons are capable of carrying out the decision.
If you are on your own, you face another question. Is this decision yours to make? You come
upon a recent accident at the side of the highway. Someone ought to stop and render
assistance. Is it you? If you are the first on the scene, the answer is probably yes. But if
emergency vehicles have already arrived and a police officer waves you on, this obligation is
not yours. Leave it to others.
By what process is the decision to be made? In some organizations, the results of dialog are
brought to an officer as recommendations and the officer alone is authorized to decide. In
others, the group has "deliberative power" to decide.
The officer with sole authority to decide is in a morally risky position. It's easy for an
executive to drift into being a Road Menace: Im the Decider! She needs the Moral GPS to
help her keep the process open for all stakeholders to participate. She needs to accept
Moral GPS
61
accountability to all for her decision. Only then will she maintain her moral authorityand her
integrity.
If it is to be a group decision, it is crucial that the decision process is determined prior to the
decision on the issue. Ideally, a group can unanimously identify a person to carry out the
group's will, and it can reach a decision by consensus. (You wish.)
A typical way for groups in the United States to reach decisions is by majority vote. There's a
moral risk in that process, because it sets up a "win lose" game. If the vote goes against
values held seriously by the minority, the vote isn't a decision, it's a collisionin fact, its likely
to result in a chain reaction of collisions.
If you have prepared well for the decision, such collisions can be avoided. Everyone has
been able to express her perspective on the issue. All stakeholders understand and respect
each others' perspectives. Even if people do not agree, they regard all proposed options as
reasonable. They accept the moral authority of the group. They accept the process for
reaching a decision. They all agree to embrace whatever decision is made, whether it's
their own preference or another. Then you have hope of arriving at a good decision.
MyGPS
Second step: lay out the options.

Your thinking and discussion so far should have flushed out the options you have. Now you
have to weigh what kind of moral claim each option may have.
o Is this option something that you should do? In a world without conflicts or limits, is it
something that would be good to do?
o Is it something you can do? Given the limits of your actual situation and the road
conditions you face, is it reasonably possible?
o Is it something you ought to do? Would it be wrong not to do it, assuming you can?
o Is it something you ought not to do? Does it cross a moral boundary?
o Is it something that you may do? It would not be wrong to do it, nor not to do it.
Next, establish priorities. Your first priority is what you ought to do, of course. In a dilemma
situation, by this time you have worked through some sort of hierarchy of values and critical
evaluation of theories that can guide your decision. If all options are only things that you may
do, use the same evaluation to establish priority among the options. Consider all
stakeholders and goals and ideals for all in the process of establishing priorities.
MyGPS
Third step: Decide.

No amount of thinking, discussion, evaluation or weighing moves you from what might be to
what will be. So far you've been able to ground your proposals in values and support those
values with theories. You've been able to analyze, criticize, speak, and listen--all with your
feet firmly on sound rational structures.
Now you must take one step that carries you beyond all those supports. "If" and "maybe" are
transformed into "yes." And why? Only because you decide so.
You may feel exhilaration in the act of deciding, like leaving the board in a well-executed dive.
You may feel terror, like stepping into the empty air before the parachute opens. No matter
what authority you hold, no matter how well the decision process worked, you know that
things could be otherwise but for your decision.
MyGPS
Moral GPS
62
Okay, you've made your decision. Things that could have been no longer can be. If it was a
dilemma you faced, important values were sacrificed that could have been saved had you
chosen to sacrifice other values. People have been affected by your decision. Among them,
some are disappointed. Despite your best efforts to minimize harm, some may have been
hurt. Why? Because you decided so.
You owe them an explanation.
Don't try to excuse your decision. "Oh, it wasn't my fault; it was those values and reasons."
Sorry, it was your fault. Your decision stepped out beyond the safe haven of established
values and theories. That's the nature of decision.
It still is important to give good reasons for your decision. If you've prepared well for the
decision, those values and their supporting theories should be clear in your mind.
At this point, your Moral GPS requires that you keep in place on the Moral Highway. Don't try
to hide. You are a fair target for criticism and second-guessing. You are a fair target for
blame. (Yes, you're a target for praise, toobut don't count on that!) So there you stand,
accepting accountability for your decision. (The processes for that come next.)
Once a decision is made, implementing that decision follows as an integral aspect of the
decision. Caution: in a complex decision, implementation may raise further moral questions
and call for further decisions. If that is the case, your effort to keep your eyes on the road
must include remaining faithful to that original decision as part of your accountability. MyGPS
Decision paralysis
That one terrifying step beyond all supports may be too much for some people. Their terror
may be rooted in one of two things:
o misunderstanding the nature of decision: a person thinks the way ahead
should be completely unambiguous. This person procrastinates. In a group, he
asks for more information, more reasons, more consultations, more studies,
more data, until the group stalls, exhausted by wheel spinning.
o fear of blame: a person cannot stand the thought that he might be wrong, and so tries
to avoid making a decision. This person will procrastinate and vacillate. He'll try to
shove decision-making responsibility off onto others. He'll maneuver to find someone
else to take the blame. Meanwhile, nothing will happen--if he can help it.
As a result, the decision process is stalled (hence "stalled vehicle"). Decision-makers are
paralyzed. Nothing happens.
It is the nature of a decision that you can't always know for sure how your decisions will
affect others. You do your best, and what actually results may depend on factors beyond
your control, often on other people's good will and help. This is a "hopeful ethic," remember.
That's what you have to call on when you take that momentous step. Act in hope.
If you're the decision maker, you'll be blamed in any case! Not to decide is to decide, as
the old saying goes.14 You're stuck. Might as well take that step. . . .
MyGPS
(next)
Harvey G. Cox, On Not Leaving It to the Snake, p. viii (1967). Quoted as Not to decide is to decide in Peters
Quotations by Laurence J. Peter ( Collins, 1993), p. 297.
14
Moral GPS
63
START
MENU
REST AREA
go to Flow Chart
Operators Manual
Fifth Step: Arriving at Destination

Ah, so sweetly does the GPS say, You have arrived at your destination.
Weve arrived!! Everybody out.
Whoa! Not so fast. Were not done yet.
Sorry.
Once a decision is made, theres often a great sigh of relief. The uncertainty is resolved. Its a
kind of euphoria. The decision generates energy for its implementation. Spirits are high.
But theres one essential step remaining: evaluation. First, you must make sure that you have
indeed arrived at your destination and not someplace else. You have to verify that you have
accomplished the goal that you aimed for. If implementing the decision takes an extended
time, you have to monitor its progress to ensure everything is on track toward your intended
destination.
Even that is not enough. Your decision has affected others, and not all those people will be
happy. You owe an explanation to everyone affected by your decision. It is your responsibility
to provide good reasons for your decision so that others may understand that you decided
fairly, even if they might disagree with the direction you took.
Finally, youre left with the recognition that it could well have been otherwise. There were
numerous possibilities, perhaps all good, and you selected one. Goodbut all the others are
now foreclosed. The euphoria dissipates and you look soberly into the mirror. How has this
decision affected me? Where am I now in my lifes moral journey? Time to reflect.
Are We There Yet?

Accountability
My Places, Recent Selections
Moral GPS
64
MENU
REST AREA
Arriving at Destination
Operators Manual
Are We There Yet?

You made a turn in the path you were on. You went to a new place.
You made a decision to seek a good that wasnt there before.
Did your decision take you where you wanted it to?
Built into your Moral GPS is a post-decision step called evaluation. No, once you've made
your decision, you're not finished. Sorry. Two main sources will provide your basis for
evaluation: results and feedback.
Results
Your decision-making process included estimating results: what good did you seek? What
risks did you foresee? What harms did you aim to avoid? At this point, look at the results and
see how they compare with what you estimated. Simple enough? (Of course not.)
While evaluation be results may not always be simple, it is nearly always sensible and
tangible. You set a tangible goal, you strive for that goal, and then its clearly evident (usually)
whether you achieved it or missed the mark. Perhaps that is why evaluation by results has
become a prominent feature of management (Management by Objectives, you know), even
in the comparatively intangible realm of higher education.15
However, you must be cautious in evaluating by results. There are crash risks here, even at
this last stage in your decision process.
Remember your other life as president of Occidental Widgets? Let's say that you decided to
put your new high-efficiency widget into production despite its unfortunate tendency to roast
anyone who dropped it on its backside. Let's say you sold several hundred thousand new
widgets and made lots of money. Results look good so far, don't they? You smile.
Then one explodes, and OW lawyers settle a tort claim. Then another explodes. Then one
explodes in Indiana, kills two teenage girls, and lands OW in criminal court charged with
negligent homicide. How does your decision look now? (If you're a one-way driver and legal
settlements cost lots less than the profits you made, maybe you're still smiling.) Then an
Orange County, California jury hands over a tort award that equals all the profits you ever
made on the new widget. In the public mind, "OW Widget" becomes a synonym for
"dangerous junk." You lose market share to your competitors big-time. (Thirty years later,
you're still climbing uphill.) OW!16
You can learn two lessons from OW. First, results often come in too late to help you
correct a bad decision. Second, beware of one-way driving in your decision process.
15
See, for instance, Angela Albert, Assessing Student Learning Outcomes In The College Environment (VDM
Verlag, 2009).
16
The OW Widget scenario is based on the Ford Pinto. See "Ford Pinto Fuel-fed Fires,"
http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?did=522&scid=8 (accessed 07/19/2011)
Moral GPS
65
Evaluation by results shares the same crash risks as results-based theories. The future is
uncertain, so short-term results may not give a real picture of good or harm done. That
doesn't mean you should ignore results. You just need another basis for evaluation as well.
The sobering vision of hindsight can help you steer more safely in the future. For instance,
most cost-benefit analysis now includes non-monetary factors in the calculations. Wiser
evaluators also include non-quantitative factors.
Feedback
A well-made decision involved all stakeholders, as much as possible, in sorting through
options prior to making the actual decision. Those same stakeholders will let you know
what they think of your decision, provided that you invite them to. That's what "channels of
communication" and "accountability structures" are for. So that's where you need to turn now.
(next)
Moral GPS
66
MENU
REST AREA
Operators Manual
Accountability
The word Accountability conjures up a picture of a person rendering an account of his
management, his expenditures, or his debts. One renders an account because one owes.
Okay, you just made a decision ("you" singular or plural). What do you owe to whom?
To everyone affected by your decision (stakeholders), you owe:
o good reasons so thatwhether those affected agree or notreasonable people can
be satisfied that the decision was based in acceptable norms and values.
o Clarity about the way you reached the decision, so it is evident that the process was
fair, rational, and inclusive of all appropriate stakeholders.
o Established channels of communication so that anyone affected by your decision
(even people you might not have been aware of) can bring criticism or concern to
decision makers without fear of any adverse consequences. (You identified those
stakeholders early in the decision process, and should have opened lines of
communication with them at that point.)
If your decision is personal and other people are not seriously involved in or affected by it,
your accountability amounts simply to frankness and honesty in your relationships with the
people with whom you share your life.
If others are seriously involved in or affected by your personal decision, you ought by now to
have sought their consensus or at least understanding (see Try to Stay Together). Once your
decision is made, your accountability has two aspects. First is your sharing your reasons and
the way you reached your decision. The otherperhaps much more importantis listening
with compassion. That may call upon you to do what you reasonably can to soften any
negative effects of your decision for others.
If the decision is a group decision or a decision within an organization, your accountability is
more complex.
Notice that it's not just your "boss" to whom you owe an account. In hierarchical
organizations, that's a typical pattern: I report to my boss, but I don't have to give any
explanations to those below me in the pecking order. Yes, you guessed it: that kind of
accountability isn't enough for the Moral Highway. It's a recipe for a crash.
You owe an account to those affected by your decision. In a hierarchical organization, that
means those below you in the pecking order. If you're a professional, that also means all
others in your profession because your decision reflects on your entire profession. Moral
accountability is downward and lateral as well as upward as in a hierarchical organization.
Any organization that wants to travel safely on the Moral Highway must have open and clear
channels of communication. Anyone at any level of the organization ought to be able to
express insight, question or criticize without risk at any stage of the decision process, as
well as after a decision is made. Take such communications seriously and let it be known that
they will be taken seriously. Respond gratefully. In your response, include your good reasons
and a description of your decision process.
Moral GPS
To everyone on the Moral Highway (potentially everyone in the world), you owe:
67
o Transparency of your process and your good reasons. Your decision may affect
many more people than you are aware of. As early in the decision process as
possible, You should make your options public so that people your decision may affect
can respond. (There are ways to float "trial balloons" if you cannot make your actual
options public.) Once the decision is made, make your reasons and process public.
(As OW learned, they're likely to become public in any case.)
o Publicized channels of communication that allow anyone to bring concerns to the
attention of decision makers.
Every decision goes beyond the good reasons that support it. Every decision will fall short
of the "should" ideal. Expect criticism (you could be wrong, remember). That's the way it is,
so live with it (in hope).
(to MyGPS)
(next)
I could be wrong
Moral GPS
68
MENU
REST AREA
Operators Manual
Okay, you've made your decision.

You've evaluated the results and you've considered the feedback.
It's done.
If it was a mistake, you've taken steps to correct what you can.
You've adjusted your process to avoid such mistakes in the future.
Now what?
You're still on the Moral Highway. Next you just drive on, right? Well, not quite.
You just agonized through a tough decision. You worked with a lot of good people. You
respect every one of them. Some you had to disappoint. You gave your reasons. They
accepted your decision as fair and reasonable, but they weren't happy. You've done your
best to minimize any real harm your decision couldn't avoid. Some people were still hurt.
But it's done. So now do you just leave it behind? Drive on and forget it?
Don't. That tough decision is now part of where you come from. Trying to forget it is like
driving without checking your mirror. That makes you crash-prone.
Take a break. Before you hit the road again, pull into a rest area and reflect for a little while.
Every move you make on the Moral Highway changes you. Every move you make
changes your relationship with the persons close to you. Every move you make reaches out,
if only a little, to affect the Highway itself and its ability to reach the goals and ideals that all
seek.
Reflect on how this decision has changed you (to MyGPS).
* * *
Okay, ready to roll? Fasten your seat beltyou're a vulnerable human being, remember, and
you can get hurt in a crash. Just like everyone else on the Moral Highway.
Maybe after going through a tough decision (or even a crash), you'll be more patient with
other driversmake room for them, ease their way on the Highway. Someone may be wrong,
sure. So what? You could be wrong, too. Make room so that you all travel safely.
The Moral GPS is a hopeful ethictrusting that the Moral Highway is taking us forward
together--each to her particular goal, but all toward . . . good.
Relax. It's a beautiful drive at this time of year on the Moral Highway. Enjoy it.
Moral GPS
69
START
MENU
REST AREA
Operators Manual
Supplement:
Driving Practice
Trip Tips for Congested Areas
Driving Practice.
The Moral GPS provides a general framework for discerning direction and guiding
decisions. Now it provides two brief cases for your driving practice. These cases involve
several stakeholders. Heres a suggestion for effective driving practice: make it a group
project. Have each person play the role of one of the stakeholders in the case. Then apply
the steps in the Moral GPS to seek consensus toward a solution.
Case 1. Health Care Ethics: Theresa Marie

Case 2. Economic and Ecological Justice: Fracking

Congested areas often have issues and norms specific to the issue. In order to steer
carefully through the congested area, you will need to take those into account. This
supplement provides trip tips that alert you to some of the more prominent of those
norms and issues.
A. Tips on Life issues
1. Taking life
2. Bioethics
3. Care of the critically ill
4. Abortion
B. Tips on Truth issues
1. truth-telling and lying
2. advertising
3. promises
C.Tips on Justice issues

1. economic justice
2. ecological justice
3. retributive justice
D.Tips on Professional ethics

The special moral responsibility of a professional.
Moral GPS
70
Driving Practice.
Driving Practice Case 1. Health Care Ethics:Theresa Marie
My Driving Practice
This driving practice case is based on actual events, but it is NOT those events. Your task is
to apply the Moral GPS in order to seek a resolution to the case. (Then, if you wish, you may
compare/contrast your resolution to the actual event.)
For driving practice, it is most effective if several participants role-play the various
stakeholders in the case, each seeking resolution from the perspective of that stakeholder.
Phase 1: initial condition.
On February 25, 1990, Theresa Marie collapsed in the hallway of her St. Petersburg, Florida,
apartment. Her husband Michael immediately called 911, but the emergency team found
Theresa Marie in full cardiac arrest. They attempted to resuscitate her without success. She
was rushed to the nearby Humana hospital and placed on a ventilator, comatose.
Tests revealed dangerously low potassium. Theresa Marie had struggled to keep her weight
down (she had been an embarrassing 200 lbs as a high school senior). Her chart shows that
she followed a mostly liquid diet, drinking large amounts of iced tea. She had missed her
menstrual period occasionally, prompting her to seek advice from her gynecologist. He did
not connect her menstrual irregularity with her dieting and possible bulimia.
She remained comatose for nine weeks. She then emerged from deep coma but remained
unconscious. She was moved from the hospital to a nursing home. Six weeks later, her
health insurance ran out. During this time, Michael has begun studying to become a nurse.
Theresa Maries parents, the Schindlers, stayed close to Michael and shared in her care.
Her husband Michael was appointed her legal guardian, in accord with Florida law. Theresa
Maries parents did not object. Michael had Theresa Marie transferred to a state facility for
brain injuries, where caregivers initially noted some slight responses to visual stimuli (closing
her eyes to sudden movements around her face). There was no improvement and no more
indications of responsiveness for over eight weeks
At the close of phase 1,Theresa Maries parents encourage Michael to bring Theresa Marie
home to their condominium and to nurse Theresa Marie with them. She shows no sign of
improvement, but is breathing on her own, nourished by a tube inserted through her
abdominal wall into her stomach. Care proves too much for Michael and the Schindlers to
manage, even with visiting nurse assistance. They have to decide what to do next.
Theresa Marie has no written living will or directive to physicians.
Stakeholders:
- Theresa Marie (unconscious and unable to make any decisions for herself)
- Michael, Theresa Maries husband and legal guardian
- Theresa Maries parents.
- Physicians:
- Dr. P, primary care physician to Theresa Marie and Michael
- Dr. H, physician and the hospital.
- Dr. B, brain injury specialist
- Dr. G, Theresa Maries gynecologist.
Moral GPS
Issue: What shall we do?
How and to what extent shall Theresa Marie be treated medically?
71
Phase 2: after alternatives have been attempted, then what?

Michael and the Schindlers chose to seek further medical treatment for Theresa Marie. The
Schindlers provided some financial support for the treatment, but meanwhile Michael had
filed a malpractice suit against the gynecologist (Dr. G), and the settlement had provided
$750,000, placed in a trust fund for Theresa Maries care.
Michael arranged for Theresa Marie to be transported to California where an experimental
device, a thalamic stimulator, was implanted in her brain with the hope of reviving brain
activity. It failed; Theresa Marie was returned to a care facility in Florida. Her primary care
physician, Dr. P, concluded that she is in a persistent vegetative state and that the
likelihood of her recovery is nil. A year and a half had passed since Theresa Marie had
collapsed.
With the Schindlers encouragement to get on with his life, Michael moved into his own
apartment and began dating. He continued his care for Theresa Marie, sometimes giving rise
to complaints by care providers that he is demanding so much for his wife that other patients
could be placed at a disadvantage.
At this point, the close pf phase 2, nearly four years have passed since Theresa Marie
collapsed. She develops a urinary tract infection. The attending physician at the care facility,
reminding Michael of Dr. Ps diagnosis of persistent vegetative state, recommends that the
infection not be treated, and suggests that Michael should enter a do not resuscitate order
and allow Theresa Marie to die. Until this time, Michael has not accepted Dr. Ps diagnosis,
nor have Theresa Maries parents. They must decide whether to treat the infection or to enter
the DNR order.
Recall that Theresa Marie has no written living will or directive to physicians.
Stakeholders:
- Theresa Maries parents.
- Physicians:
- Dr. C, physician at the care facility.
- Administrator of the care facility.
How and to what extent shall Theresa Marie be treated medically?
Phase 3: continuing life support
Acceding to the Schindlers wishes, Michael rescinded the Do Not Resuscitate order.
Four more years have passed with no evident change in Theresa Maries condition.
Theresa Marie has been moved to a hospice, where nutrition and hydration are continued via
a feeding tube.
Moral GPS
72
At the close of this phase, Dr. R, attending physician at the Hospice, and Dr. P, Theresa
Maries primary physician, advise Michael that she is in a persistent vegetative state and that
no improvement is to be expected. They recommend removal of the feeding tube.
The Schindlers have consulted with another physician, Dr. H, who suggests that new
experimental procedures may revive Theresa Marie. Theresa Maries brother Rob and her
sister Susan urge their parents to follow his suggestions.
An associate of Robs, Brother Q, reminds the Schindlers of Catholic teaching on the care of
the critically ill: there is an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including
medically assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally. Medically
assisted nutrition and hydration become morally optional when they cannot reasonably be
expected to prolong life or when they would be excessively burdensome for the patient or
would cause significant physical discomfort. If there is an underlying progressive and fatal
condition, such nutrition and hydration may become excessively burdensome and therefore
not obligatory in light of their very limited ability to prolong life or provide comfort. He argues
that Theresa Marie does not have such a fatal disease that would be the cause of her death;
removal of the feeding tube would cause death. And since she has no living will or directive,
there is no moral basis for removing the feeding tube, and an absolute moral reason for not
removing it.
Michael believes that Theresa Marie would not want to continue life in this way. But her wish,
as he understands it, has not been clearly expressed.
Michael and the Schindlers agree to have another diagnosis done on Theresa Marie. Dr. P.,
Dr. R., and Dr. H. provide diagnoses. Dr. P. and Dr. R. reaffirm their diagnosis of persistent
vegetative state with no positive prognosis. They recommend removal of the feeding tube. Dr.
H., however, states that Theresa Marie is in a minimally conscious state and that new and
experimental procedures may cause a positive change.
Stakeholders:
- Theresa Maries family:
parents
brother Rob
sister Susan
- Physicians:
- Dr. R, physician at the hospice.
- Dr. H, physician advisor to the Schindlers
- Brother Q.
- Administrator at the Hospice
Shall the feeding tube be removed or continued?17
This driving practice is adapted from the Terri Schiavo case. That case provides an excellent example of
what can happen if dialog fails to reach consensus or mutual understanding. See Timothy E. Quill, M.D., Terri
Schiavo A Tragedy Compounded, New England Journal of Medicine, April 2005.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp058062#t=article (accessed 09 15 2011).
17
Moral GPS
73
Driving Practice.
My Driving Practice
Case 2: Economic and Ecological Justice: Fracking

Phase 1: New opportunity.
The township of Lieblich, Pennsylvania, rests among wooded ravines and lush green
pasturelands along the western border of the state. Lieblich is home to some 4,000 people,
whose homes form clusters in the wider valleys here and there in the forty-some square miles
of the township. In many respects the lives of the folks here havent changed much from
those of the eighteenth-century settlers who struggled to scratch a livelihood from the land.
Sarah Handley, 40, is happy here. Weve always been poor, she says. Thats just the way
we are, and we dont mind. She is a single mother. She and her son Harold, 15, and
daughter Pauline, 12, keep up a small hillside farmstead near the edge of the township. It
includes a two-acre vegetable patch and supports a small menagerie of pigs, goats and
rabbits. They call on neighbors and relatives to help with the bigger tasks, and help the others
in their turn. Sarah works part-time as a nurse in the Lieblich hospital.
Sarahs uncle Bill Hart, 63, runs a cattle farm that fills a seventy-acre valley near the center of
the township. He is the local expert on Lieblichs history and its geography, including its
strategic location over the Marcellus Shale formation, a mile or so down in the earth, and the
Pennsylvanian aquifer some hundred feet down that Lieblichs wells tap.
Bill wasnt surprised when an agent for Rover Resources, a natural gas company, showed up
in Lieblich. After all, Bill knew about the natural gas potential of the Marcellus Shale. He also
knew the history of coal mining and then industrial mining in Lieblichboom times for maybe
a generation, but then a gradual settling back to the way things had been for a couple of
centuries. However, Bill knew he needed more information about the new technique for
tapping natural gas: hydraulic fracturing.
Mark Pitzicotta, representative of Rover Resources, explained hydraulic fracturing to Bill: a
mixture of water, sand and chemicals are pumped deep into the earth to crack the shale that
is holding vast quantities of natural gas. Once that is done, wells tap the now accessible gas
reservoir. Mark assured Bill that the chemicals used in the fracking water were no threat to
health or to the environment. The only lasting disruption to his property would be the gas well
headabout the size of a garbage can. Rover Resources asked to lease the mineral rights to
his property (and others, he hoped). Bill would receive a payment up front of $1000 per acre,
plus a royalty of between 12 and 15 percent on the gas produced by the well(s) on his
property.
Bill talked it over with people in Lieblich, especially with Sarah Handley. Sarah could sure use
the money; she had farm debts. Bills barns needed new roofs. But this fracking business was
still pretty new, so how could they be sure it would be safe? Sarah had read about objections
to fracking because of the risk to the environment. Bill scoffed at thatthose
environmentalists are all city folk, he said. Its the country folk that know whats best. But
Bill had his reservations, too. I remember the coal boom days. Didnt last long, and then we
were back to the way weve always been. Thisll probably be the same.
(representative) Stakeholders:
- Mark Pitzicotta, representative of Rover Resources
- Bill Hart 63, a barber and cattle farmer
Moral GPS
- Sarah Handley, mother of, Pauline, 12, and Harold, 15,
74
Issue:
- Every venture entails risk. What is acceptable risk, and how is that to be estimated?
- Potential dilemma: long-term versus short-term.
- How should Bill and Sarah respond to Rover Resources overture?
Phase 2: animal problems and odors
[Assume they agreed to the leases and Rover Resources began fracking in Lieblich.]
At the county fair the following summer, Sarah Handley was talking with her nearest
neighbor, Liza Moeller. Lisa raised and trained horses and bred dogs on her fifty acres of
hillside. Liza was complaining that one of her prize dogs died suddenly. She feared he had
been poisoned. Shed seen him lapping up water from a roadside puddle, and wondered
what the gas drillers were using to wet down the gravel road. Anti-freeze? Besides, she
noticed a rotten egg smell in the air from time to time.
Marge Harper, a reporter for the county newspaper, joined the conversation. She said that
Rover Resources had refused to tell her what chemicals were in the water they pumped into
the earthtrade secret, they said. She had also been denied access to their central work
site, just over the ridge from Sarah and Lizas property. John Knight, also a farmer and a
high-school science teacher, told of a spill from one of the trucks hauling the chemically
treated water to the pump site. He scooped up some of the water and tested it, but couldnt
identify all the chemicals in it. He found none of the chemicals that would be likely to stink or
would likely poison a dog, so he thought there was no reason to be alarmed.
Later that summer, Sarahs dog died. Liza came over to commiserate, and said one of her
horses had died. Shed had the veterinarian do a kind of autopsy and he noted a
concentration of heavy metals in the liver. She also mentioned that a whole litter of pups had
deformities, and nearly all died within a few days. What the H is going on here, Liza asked.
What are they hiding up over that hill?
Sarahs son Harold walked in at that moment. Google Earth, he said. Both women looked at
him: Huh? Harold revved up his computer, accessed Google Earth, and as the women
watched over his shoulder he zoomed in to their county and centered on their property.
Look.
The satellite view showed a huge pond just over the crest of the ridge from their properties.
That wasnt there before, he said. I wondered about thatthey pump all that water and
stuff into the ground, and I bet a lot of it comes back up. I wondered what they did with it.
I wonder whats IN it, Liza said. With Lizas encouragement, Sarah called Jim Caroll, an
investigator for the Pennsylvania Environmental Protection Agency.
Carroll approached Rover Resources with a request to examine the flowback pond, as they
called it. Mark Pitzicotta responded with a counter-offer, to test all water sources on Lizas
property. The tests showed no pollutants in the drinking water or the well water Liza used for
her horses.
Stakeholders:
- Sarah Handley, landowner and farmer
- Liza Moeller, 51, landowner, horse and dog breeder
Moral GPS
- Marge Harper, reporter
- Jim Carroll, Pennsylvania EPA investigator
- John Knight, 64, resident and HS science teacher
75
Issue:
- Where do Sarah and Liza go from here?
- To what extent is Rover Resources obliged to allow EPA inspection of their site,
since there has been no official complaint?
- How much of this information should the reporter publicize?
Phase 3: health problems.
Sarah was taking a short rest in late October when her phone rang. John Knight was on the
line, telling her that her son Harold had come down with severe stomach pains in his class,
and that hed called an ambulance to take him to the Lieblich hospital. Tests revealed an
elevated level of arsenic. Sarah immediately called Mark Pitzicotta and demanded that Rover
Resources supply her family with drinking water. Mark had the company test her water supply
and they found nothing wrong. The company delivered a 2500-gallon tank of drinking water
anyway.
Sickening odors wafted around Handleys house from time to time. Sarah was feeling run
down, but attributed that to her odd hours working as a part-time nurse. In mid-November,
though, she noticed that her daughter Pauline was acting listless. She went to Dr. Frank
Renard and asked that he order tests for herself and Pauline. Their test results showed small
amounts of heavy metals like arsenic and of industrial solvents like benzene and toluene in
their blood. Dr. Renard said that indicated they had some exposure to these chemicals, but
the amounts were so small he couldnt conclude that the chemicals were causing their
condition. But, he pointed out, these chemicals are known carcinogens, and there is no safe
level of exposure to them.
Sarah shared the results with her uncle Bill, her neighbor Liza, and John Knight. Then she
called Mark Pitzicotta. Mark said that Rover Resources did not use any arsenic, benzene or
toluene in the fracking mixture they pumped into the ground. He added that there was a
history of minor pollutants in this part of Pennsylvania, so the cause was likely to be
somewhere other than the Rover operation.
Spring came, daffodils bloomed, but the air was anything but fresh. Sarahs daughter Pauline
complained that the smell made her gag. Liza came to visit, and told Sarah that she was
getting blisters inside her nose, mouth and throat. A day or two later, Sarah started feeling
dizzy. So did Pauline. Harold fainted, and he couldnt stay steady on his feet after that. Dr.
Renard insisted that they leave the house, and that Harold shouldnt come back there for at
least a month. Ive never seen anything like this, Dr. Renard told reporter Marge Harper. All
these symptoms and no clear cause, all this elevated level of carcinogens and no clear
source.
John Knight saw what was happening to Sarah and her family, and to Liza, and couldnt rest
easy. As soon as the school term ended, he put on his hiking boots and trudged up the
hillside behind Sarah and Lizas farms, close to the fenced Rover Resources site. He heard a
kind of hissing sound from a small creeknot like the usual burbling. The creek was foamy
and multicolored like oil. He bottled a sample and took it to his lab. He found traces of arsenic
and benzene in the water.
Moral GPS
76
It dawned on him. The problem isnt the chemicals that Rover Resources is putting into the
ground. Its the dissolved substances flushed out. John called Jim Carroll. The two men hiked
up to the creek that John had noticed. Jim took his own sample and promised to have it
analyzed in the EPA lab.
The tests revealed that salts in the flowback water contained acetone, toluene, benzene,
phenol, arsenic, barium, heavy metals and methane. Salts, John told Marge Harper, are
long-term problems. They arent biodegradable.
Marge called on Jim Carroll and asked what the EPA would do about this problem. Jim was
cautious. We found some pollutants in runoff, probably due to a crack in the flowback pool
liner atop the hill behind the Handley and Moeller properties. Rover Resources claims to have
repaired any cracks, but cracks in that kind of liner are not all that unusual. Also, we have no
way of knowing with certainty that the health problems are directly caused by the runoff. We
will have to investigate further. Given the immunity of fracking concerns from the Clean Water
Act standards, we may have to sue in order to be able to investigate.
Marge interviewed Sarah Handley, asking how she was coping with not being able to live in
her home. I spend about four hours each day, Sarah told her, just driving because my kids
have to live way out in the next county, but they still have to get to school and their activities.
What with the cost of gas, the medical bills, lost income from the farm and all, I just about
break even with the Rover lease money and royalties.
So what do you think of Rover Resources now? Marge asked. Sarah said, Theyve ruined
our lives. I worry if my kids are going to have cancer, and I know Ill be worrying about that for
the rest of my life. Weve lost our home for all practical purposes, and all our animals. No
matter how much money theyd give me, no way is it worth the risk to my childrens health.
Stakeholders:
- Harold and Pauline Handley
- Liza Moeller, landowner, horse and dog breeder
- Dr. Frank Renard, family physician
Issue: Obviously there is a threat to the health at least of the people closest to the Rover
Resources site.
- What ought the EPA do?
- What obligation does Rover Resources have?
- What obligations do Sarah and Liza have, and what ethical claims can they make?
- What obligations rest with Marge Harper toward the larger community and toward
the other key stakeholders here?
Phase 4: raising the stakes
Pennsylvania State Senator George Willey had grown up in Lieblich and had been a high
school classmate of Sarah Handley. She had seen him only rarely after he left the area, but
she thought he might be able to help her and the people of Lieblich.
Moral GPS
77
Senator Willey met in the Lieblich caf with Sarah, Liza Moeller, John Knight, Bill Hart and Dr.
Renard one afternoon in August. They told of their health problems and of how farms had
been ruinedat least Sarahs and Lizas. Could the Senator help them to make Rover
Resources stop and then repair the damage?
You might want to think about that a bit, Senator Willey said. You know how bad the
economy is in this areaone of the highest unemployment levels in the nation after the steel
mills closed down. Well, heres something to consider: Conch Oil, one of the biggest
petrochemical firms in the world, is planning to build a processing center for natural gas
somewhere in the states over the Marcellus Shale. That center will mean an investment of
over a billion dollars, and will bring thousands, I mean many thousands, of jobs into the area
where it is located. If we raise big problems for Rover Resources here, what does that do to
the likelihood that the processing center will be located near here?
Bill Hart said, Ive seen big booms like this, and Ive seen the big busts that follow them. So
they build this big center, what then? Come the bust, its just another big empty shell like all
those vacant steel plants upstate; just weed patches and rat hotels.
Senator Wiley replied, I know what youre talking about, Mr. Hart. But believe me, this is
different. There is so much natural gas trapped in this shale that it can meet over 50% of our
national energy needs for at least the next twenty years. But the only way to get it is by
fracking.
Marge Harper joined the group at that point. Did you hear about what just happened up by
Youngstown? They stared at her. Earthquakes, she said. A whole string of little
earthquakesswallowed up several whole barns and a couple houses. Nobody killedyet.
Thats terrible, said the Senator, weve never had earthquakes in this part of the country.
But to get back to our discussion--what do earthquakes have to do with?
Jim Carroll came in, breathless. You hear about the earthquakes? They nodded as Jim
took a seat. The likely cause, our geologists determined, is the large number of fracking
wells in the Youngstown area. Fracking breaks up the shale, releases gas, but the substrata
are destabilized in the process.
John Knight asked, Is that a unique problem to that location, or is it likely wherever fracking
takes place?
Theres no way yet to determine that, Jim said.
Liza remembered the sickening odors around her farm. Jim, are gases released into the air
through fracking, or are they able to capture it all in their wells?
Gases are released, Jim said. In fact, fracking releases more hydrocarbons into the air
than any other mode of gas drilling.
Silence around the table.
Almost in a whisper, Sarah said, weve got to do something.
Stakeholders:
- Liza Moeller, landowner, horse and dog breeder
Moral GPS
- Dr. Frank Renard, family physician
- Pennsylvania State Senator George Willey
- Bill Hart 63, a barber and a cattle farmer
Issues:
- Every venture entails risk. What is acceptable risk, and how is that to be estimated?
- How balance benefits and costs?
- What are the obligations of each of these stakeholders to each other and to the
larger community?
78
Moral GPS
79

A. Life Issues
START
MENU
REST AREA
Supplement
Operators Manual
Trip Tips
Life issues include taking human life (e.g. justifiable self-defense), managing life (bioethics
and the care of the critically ill), and abortion. The Trip Tips alert you to problems specific to
each issue. The Tips also give you specialized methods (routes) for addressing some of
those problems.
1. Taking life
(war, self-defense, capital punishment)
2. Bioethics
4. Abortion
1. Taking life (war, self-defense, capital punishment)

The Just War Theory
Criteria for a Just War18
This set of norms has been used for about 1500 years in western European thought to test
whether it is justifiable to use lethal military force in a particular case.
Basic assumptions: War is evil. But in some cases it may be a necessary evil, where there
are no alternatives that are not evil. The presumption is against war; therefore the burden of
proof rests upon the one who turns to military force.
Rule of thumb: if war is avoidable, war is unethical. In other words, a nation cannot
ethically "paint itself into a corner" so that there are no alternatives that are not evil.
This "just war theory" is the only ethically substantial basis for justifying war that has
emerged in Western thought. If one rejects this theory as "unrealistic," then one is abandoning
any pretense of ethical justification in using military force (in other words, one has an evil
intent). Note: often a party who initiates military action claims to justify that action according to
this theory (witness "Operation Just Cause" in Panama19). That claim must be verified in
relation to the criteria listed below.
War may be ethically justified if all of the following conditions are fulfilled. (All: every single
one. If even one condition is not fulfilled, war is not justified.)
Conditions for starting to use military force (jus ad bellum):
18
Distilled from the U. S. Catholic bishops, The Challenge of Peace, 1983, pp. 26-34. 1991 Leonard J. Bowman
See http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/just%20cause/justcause.pdf (accessed 10/24/2011).
19
Moral GPS
Just Cause:* to confront a real, present and certain danger to human life or to very basic
human rights.
80
Competent authority: no private person (or corporation) may use military force; only the
proper public authority, e.g. in the U. S., The Constitution identifies Congress. A justifiable
revolutionwhen the "competent authority" is itself threatening life or very basic human
rightsis a qualification of this norm.
Comparative justice: Do the rights and values involved (the "just cause") really justify killing?
Right Intention: Is the war really being fought for the "just cause"? (E.g. was the Persian Gulf
war really to repel aggression, or was it over oil?) Is peace constantly sought meanwhile?
Or is the intention revenge or political power?
Last Resort:* All peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted before using force can be
justified (i.e. war has to be a necessary evil.) Putting obstacles in the way of peaceful
alternatives cannot be justified.
Probability of success: even resistance to naked aggression is not justified if it is futile.
Proportionality: Will the world really be better off because of the war? Enough better off to
really justify the killing, suffering, damage, and disruption?
Once war starts, the conduct of war comes under these norms (jus in bello):
Proportionality:* Do only what is necessary to get the job done; no overkill. (e.g. nuclear
weapons risk destroying the planet!)
Discrimination: direct attacks on civilian targets are wrong. Even when the target is a military
one, make every effort to minimize civilian casualties.
*Asterisked criteria also apply to self-defense and the defense of the innocent.
Self defense and defense of the innocent.
Self-defense is considered a kill or be killed situation. Killing an attacker is a bad means to
saving ones own life, and so self-defense is not double effect. Rather, one commits an evil in
order to prevent a greater evil. Killing in self-defense or in defense of an innocent other
person is justified if these conditions (from the Just War theory) are fulfilled:
1. Just cause: to confront a real, present and certain danger to human life.
2. Last Resort: All peaceful alternatives (e.g. escape) must have been exhausted before
using lethal force can be justified. (Stand your ground is therefore not justified.)
3. Proportionality: Use force sufficient to repel the attacker; if non-lethal force (e.g. pepper
spray) is adequate, killing the attacker is not justified.
4. Authority: Only persons authorized for the defense of the innocent (e.g. police) are
clearly justified in using lethal force to ward off an attack on another person. (This
principle has been inappropriately invoked by a sniper who murdered a physician
entering a clinic where abortions were performed.)
Moral GPS
Capital Punishment
81
Like a justified war and unlike self-defense, capital punishment is the act of a state. The same
basic criteria apply: killing a human person is evil, yet it may be justifiable. The burden of proof
rests on the one who would kill. Similar norms are applicable as well:
1. Just cause: to confront a real, present and certain danger to human life. Since a person
convicted of murder is not ordinarily in a position to pose such a danger, it is difficult to
see how this norm could apply. Some claim that such a person is likely to kill again were
his life to be spared, but such a claim requires either foreknowledge of the future or clear
statistical evidence for likely recidivism among convicted murderers. Such evidence
does not exist.
2. Deterrence: Here the just cause claim is applied to other potential murderers in a
society who are more likely to refrain from murder if they would face execution for that
crime. This claim could be verified by statistical evidence that states practicing capital
punishment have significantly lower murder rates than states without capital punishment
laws. But the burden of proof rests upon one who would kill, and the statistical evidence
is at most inconclusive.
3. An eye for an eye: the Law of Talion (retaliation) is sometimes invoked to justify capital
punishment (see Exodus 21:23-24), perhaps echoing the norm of proportionality. One
who would claim divine justification on this basis would have to establish, first, that his
interpretation of that Biblical norm is valid,20 and second, that it is appropriate to impose
such a norm in a pluralistic, democratic society.
Since the burden of proof rests upon the one who would kill, it is difficult to see ethical
justification for capital punishment. Hence to discuss capital punishment, you are likely to find
the Moral GPS section on helping traffic obstructions most useful.
Other arguments are sometimes brought forth in favor of capital punishment, but the above
three claim to be ethical justifications. If another argument is brought forth, it is essential to
examine it for ethical validity however emotionally or politically appealing the argument may be.
20
An obvious alternate interpretation considers the Law of Talion a moderation of retaliation, contrasting with
what was done to the Shechemites in retaliation for the rape of Dinah (Genesis 34). Further, since blinding a
perpetrator does nothing to restore the eye of the victim, sensible interpreters understand talion as the measure
of monetary compensation for injuries. See http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/581485/talion
(Accessed 10/24/2011).
Moral GPS
82
START
MENU
REST AREA
Supplement
Life Issues
2. Bioethics; Health Care Ethics

Bioethics is an entire field. Here are a few of the more prominent issues debated within that
field.
Informed Consent and Paternalism.
Current health care practice reflects appropriate respect for the moral autonomy of patients.
Health care providers are obliged to obtain prior informed consent to any procedure or
medication. This obligation goes beyond simply presenting information; the provider must
ensure that the patient understands the information.
The patient is to be informed of the nature of the procedure or medication, its benefits, and its
potential side effects, especially negative ones. But some medications may have hundreds of
side effects, so it is often impractical to fully inform a patient. How does the provider
determine which potential side-effects are presented and which omitted? Two criteria work
together to guide judgment in this matter. First, how serious is the potential side-effect?
Second, how frequently does this side-effect occur among users of the particular medication?
A very serious side-effect, even though it is rare, should be explained to the patient. A minor
side-effect that occurs frequently should be explained to the patient.
However, not all patients are morally autonomous. Two classes of patients regularly require
that someone else make health-care decisions for them: the incapable (e.g., an unconscious
accident victim) and young children. This paternalism (sometimes parentalism) overrides a
patients moral autonomy, and so it must be justified. Ordinarily health care providers will rely
on parents of a young child first to determine how morally mature the child is, and then to
make decisions for the child. In the case of an unconscious or otherwise incapable adult,
health care providers rely on a family member (next of kin), if available.
There is an important limit to the authority of such decisions made on behalf of another
person. For instance, if a conscious and fully capable adult patient refuses treatment even
against the advice of health care professionals, that patients decision must be respected.
However, if parents refuses treatment (e.g. for religious reasons refusing a life-saving blood
transfusion for their child), a physician may be justified in proceeding with the treatment
anyway.21
The need to decide for another arises most frequently in the care of the critically ill (see
below). The moral challenge can be alleviated through a living will or directive to
physicians that expresses the patients own preference in advance.
In Vitro Fertilization and Stem Cell Research
21
This conflict between religious objection and medical necessity has been softened through development of
non-blood transfusions adequate to preserve life. It is important to distinguish religious objections to treatment
for adherents to the religion (e.g., Jehovahs Witnesses and blood transfusion) from religion-based claims that a
procedure is wrong for anyone (e.g., Catholics and contraception). The latter stance may affect an entire
institution and may entail a risk of moral bigotry.
Moral GPS
83
Controversies regarding in vitro fertilization and stem cell research revolve around an issue
central to the abortion controversy: what is the status of human embryos? Are they persons?
Particularly when several ova are fertilized in vitro so that one may be implanted, what
becomes of the rejects? If stem cells are derived from an aborted fetus, is that violating
Kants practical imperative never to use another person merely as a means? Yet that very
question may be begging the question. Refer to the discussion of person below.
Positions in favor of these procedures typically are based on Consequentialist theories,
particularly Utilitarianism. Positions opposing them typically are based on
Nonconsequentialist theories like natural rights, natural law, or divine command.
Genetics and Cloning
Two issues typically rise regarding human genetics and cloning:
1. Genetic engineering. Where is the moral limit in regard to manipulating our human
species? Expressions like playing God emerge. Fears arise that efforts to perfect a human
being by genetic intervention will lead down the slippery slope toward a new eugenics
movement. (Such a movement in the early 20th century led, remember, to master race
ideology, and the Nazi genocidal campaign.)
2. Genetic screening and counseling. Here people who belong to populations susceptible
to genetic diseases (e.g., Tay-Sachs), even though they are asymptomatic, are tested to
determine whether they are carriers of the disease.
While such screening may help to prevent the development or spread of the disease, a
negative result may be that persons identified as carriers of a disease may be discriminated
against in employment, health insurance, and the like.
This is an area that requires careful steering.
Here are a few internet sources:
http://freedomtocare.org/iane.htm (nursing) (accessed 08 23 2011)
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001461/146180E.pdf (bioethics) (Accessed 08 23 2011)
http://www.acponline.org/ethics/?hp (medical) (accessed 08 23 2011)
http://www.ana.org (nursing) (accessed 08 23 2011)
http://www.bioethicsinstitute.org/ (bioethics)(accessed 08 23 2011)
Moral GPS
84
START
MENU
REST AREA
Supplement
Life Issues
Health care ethics: Ordinary (Appropriate) and Extraordinary (Inappropriate) Means22

In the care of the critically ill, it is important to distinguish which treatments to sustain life are
ethically required and which may be omitted or withdrawn. Those that are required are called
ordinary means (appropriate care); those that may justifiably be omitted or withdrawn are
called extraordinary means (inappropriate care).
Criteria for determining which treatments may legitimately be omitted:
1. Uselessness. The treatment will not benefit the patient.
2. Grave burden to the patient (e.g. severe pain, serious side effects) or to others (e.g.
cost). It is important that grave burden to the patient be determined in the patients
view. (Advance Directives ["living wills"see below] are extremely helpful here)
In particular cases, determining whether a treatment is or is not appropriate will involve a
balancing of benefit (usefulness) and burden.
Note that omitting extraordinary treatments may be ethically justified, but it is not ethically
required. One may continue life-support, for instance, even if removing it would be entirely
justified.
Omitting or withdrawing extraordinary life-sustaining treatments may be termed allowing to
die, letting-die, or even passive euthanasia.
Living Will
Ideally, all health care decisions are made with the informed consent of the patient (see
above). However, the most critical decisions often arise when the patient is incapable of
decision, even of communication. There is no predicting exactly when such an event may
happen to a person.
Therefore all prudent adults ought to take steps to communicate their view to health care
professionals in a way that will hold firm even when they are incapacitated.
The most effective way to accomplish that is through three legal documents:
1. a living will, directive to physicians, or health care directive that identifies what kinds
of treatments the patient accepts and what kinds should be omitted in case the patient is
incapacitated.
2. a limited power of attorney that identifies another person to make health care decisions
on behalf of an incapacitated patient.
3. a do not resuscitate order ordinarily limited to avoid life-support when an illness or
condition is terminal and no genuine health benefit would be gained by life support.
Each state has standard forms for these documents. Here are a few websites that provide
access to such forms:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/living-wills/HA00014 (accessed 02 22 2012)
http://www.legacywriter.com/livingwill.asp?src=m12livingwillsj (accessed 02 22 2012)
22
based on Robert M. Veatch, The Basics of Bioethics (Prentice Hall, 2003)

Moral GPS
85
http://www.rocketlawyer.com/documents/living-will.aspx (accessed 02 22 2012)

http://www.livingwill.com/ (accessed 02 22 2012)
Hospice
A consistent ethic of life includes not only valuing life but also accepting death.
Sometimes there is no cure for a life-threatening illness. Health care professionals tend to be
cure-oriented, so that a diagnosis of incurable or terminal may translate as failure. (That
is one reason for the importance of the above distinction between appropriate and
inappropriate care.) Once a cure is no longer likely, some think the care-giver has no
serious role to play other than minimizing pain.
In the 1960s, two movements began that led to the contemporary Hospice movement. Lady
Cicely Saunders, a nurse, recognized that patients facing death required not just minimal
(palliative) care but a different kind of care. She pursued a medical degree and founded St.
Christophers Hospice in 1967. Meanwhile, psychologist Elizabeth Kubler-Ross published On
Death and Dying in 1969, showing that dying was a psychological as well as physical process
that required a distinctive kind of care.
Hospice is an approach to care (not necessarily a place!) that takes dying seriously as an
important aspect of life. As Captain Hook put it, Death is the last great adventure I have left
to live.23 Hospice is designed to support and encourage a person in that last great
adventure. The medical side of care is primarily palliativepain management. But it is the
psychological and spiritual side of care that sets Hospice apart. Hospice care givers are
trained in the psychology of dying and they appreciate the task the dying person is
undertaking.
Hospice is designed for persons who have recognized that their death is imminent. Some
hospices admit only persons who have admitted that as a fact; some others accept anyone
who may be dying and assist the patient with the decision to pursue curative care or not.
Hospice is not itself a place, but there are designated places for Hospice care, either as part
of a larger health-care institution or as free-standing. Hospice Home Care is widely available,
most often through a community-based hospice consisting of visiting nurses and trained
volunteers.
You may face the challenge of a life-threatening illness in yourself, in family or friends.
Remember that dying is not just loss (so dont be satisfied with sympathy); dying is a
positive act and an important part of life. For further information and insight, check these
sources:
http://hospicenet.org/ (accessed 03 21 2012)
http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/FindingandPayingforTreatment/ChoosingYourTreatmentTeam/HospiceCare/in
dex (accessed 03 21 2012)
http://www.nhpco.org/templates/1/homepage.cfm (accessed 03 21 2012)National Hospice and Palliative Care
Organization.
http://www.aahpm.org/ (accessed 03 21 2012) The American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine
http://www.nahc.org/ (accessed 03 21 2012) National Asssociate for Home Care and Hospice
23
Hook, 1991 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102057/quotes?qt=qt0442173 (accessed 03 21 2012)

Moral GPS
86
Definition of death
Crucial in ethical judgments concerning the critically ill is the determination of death. At one
time, determining death was not a problem: the heart stopped, breathing ceased. With the
advance of life-support technology, determining death has become a challenging problem.
And death must be determined if removal of life support is to be justified or if harvesting of
vital organs of an organ donor is to be justified. The challenge is also philosophical: what,
after all, is death? Technological advances revealed a disturbing truth: we do not know.
In 1968, the Harvard Ad Hoc Committee on Brain Death described "irreversible coma" or
brain death as 1. Unreceptivity and unresponsitivitypatient shows total unawareness to
external stimuli and unresponsiveness to painful stimuli; 2. No movements or breathingall
spontaneous muscular movement, spontaneous respiration and response to stimuli are
absent; and 3. No reflexesfixed, dilated pupils; lack of eye movement even when hit or
turned, or ice water is placed in the ear; lack of response to noxious stimuli; unelicitable
tendon reflexes.24 In effect, the Harvard committee offered a set of tests or procedures. If the
procedures provide the results described, one is justified in acting as if the person were dead.
In the summer of 1980, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
proposed a Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), which was approved by the
American Medical Association that autumn and by the American Bar Association the
following spring. This document determines that a person is dead who has sustained (1)
irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of
all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem.25 By requiring that the whole brain
ceases function, this Act excludes "neocortical death or persistent vegetative state. These
are not deemed valid medical or legal bases for determining death.
At present, the UDDA standard holds sway. The problem with that standard is that it requires
care providers to prove a negative, philosophically almost impossible except for logical
contradictions. (Try it sometime: prove beyond any question that there is no elephant in the
living room!) That can place an insurmountable hurdle in the way of removal of life support or
harvesting donor organs. Discussion continues, therefore, on a less restrictive determination
of death, a higher-brain oriented definition.26 A person could be considered dead, then, with
an irreversible loss of consciousness, even though there was some evidence of reflexes in
the brain stem. This criterion, however, is not recognized by law.
24
http://www.ascensionhealth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=153&Itemid=172 (accessed
03 01 2012)
25 See http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/fnact99/1980s/udda80.htm. See also
http://uniformlaws.org/ActSummary.aspx?title=Determination%20of%20Death%20Act and
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWEB/ETEXTS/DeathandDying_TEXT/Legal_Definition_Death.htm
(all accessed 03 01 2012)
26 Robert M. Veatch, The Basics of Bioethics (Pearson/Prentice-Hall, 2003), 38-39
Moral GPS
87
4. Abortion
START
MENU
REST AREA
Supplement
Life Issues
If at all possible, avoid attempts at ethical discussion of abortion.

This topic is a social dilemma of the most challenging sort. It is not only a congested area; it
is a multi-vehicle pile-up that can threaten to block the Moral Highway entirelythat is, it can
render moral dialog impossible.27 Absolute stances are intransigent in their opposition, no
longer attempting to provide good reasons that make sense to those who do not already
share their unquestioned assumptions.
If you must attempt ethical discussion, be extremely wary of Road Menaces of the Moral
Bigot variety.
It may help to clarify some aspects of the Abortion issue.
Person
Be cautious with terms. Human life and human being are vague terms. Human person
has legal currency, but it is not clear what constitutes a human person. Further, there is no
consensus forming in attempts to define human person. One reason for that is, such
attempts typically are directed toward an already formed stance on abortion, and so skid into
the fallacy of begging the question.
Person is the crucial concept, for at present, United States law recognizes only persons as
subjects of rights.
But what constitutes a person?
The legal status means subject of rights. A human being is clearly recognized as
possessing basic rights at birth, and (partially) yields that status at death. But if that alone is
understood to constitute person, two unfortunate corollaries appear. First, whoever
recognizes those rights (government?) is constituting persons, and the rights can then be
seen as arbitrary, not inalienable. Second, the distinction between person and the legal
fiction, legal person, is blurred.28
Some argue that a distinct human individual is a person, and define that distinctness in
biological terms. One becomes a distinct individual at the point that a human ovum is
fertilizedat conception. This definition affords a clear starting point for personhood and the
consequent rights. Such clarity is appealing to deontological perspectives, though some raise
the concern that a biological definition may be inappropriate regarding moral and legal
issues. Consequentialists recognize serious problems, most dramatically in regard to ordinary
miscarriages, that render this definition impractical.
Note the 1983 attempt of Cardinal Joseph Bernardine to include abortion in a seamless garment dialog on
all life issues, a consistent ethic of life. See Richard McBrien, Cardinal Bernardins Seamless Garment,
National Catholic Reporter, Dec. 26, 2008 http://ncronline.org/node/2926 (accessed 03 21 2012). Bernardins
attempt was defeated in the U. S. Catholic Bishops conference by the more narrowly focused anti-abortion
stance of Cardinal Bernard Law.
28 This blurring is dramatically seen in the U. S. Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v Federal Election
Commission, of January 2010.
27
Moral GPS
88
Actual practice regarding abortion suggests that it may be inappropriate to seek a clear
starting point for personhood. The later in pregnancy an abortion is proposed, the greater
justification is required. The implied assumption is that personhood is not an absolute yesor-no status but a process of development, and the obligation to protect fetal life is more
serious the more developed the life.
Unfortunately, such a developmental approach to abortion is unacceptable to either side of
the current debate, just as linking abortion with other life issues (Bernardins attempt) is a
nonstarter especially for the pro-life stance.
As long as absolutist stances remain intransigent on this issue, real ethical dialog will be
impossible.
Action or Law?
There are two very different levels of ethical discussion regarding abortion: particular action
and public policy.
The particular level focuses on the moral dilemma of a woman with a problem pregnancy.
Here the distinction of should and ought is crucial. Continuing the pregnancy to term is a
should and has the moral right of way. The alternative, abortion, requires good reasons by
way of justification. A difficulty rises here: to whom are those good reasons owed? With so
many one-way drivers crowding this issue, providing reasons that are generally accepted or
at least understandable is impossible. The reasoning of the 1973 Supreme Court decision 29
stressed privacy. On the Moral Highway, the equivalent concern is which stakeholders ought
to be included in a decision process. Remember that all potential stakeholders should be
included. Given the personal and critical nature of pregnancy, however, there are very good
reasons to limit inclusion, probably to the woman and her physician.
Claims that the prohibition of abortion is exceptionless (absolute) risk a skid because of the
limited usefulness of moral absolutes on the Moral Highway. Absolute or not, a norm will
have to merit the consensus or at least understanding of all involved. It is obvious that no
such consensus or understanding exists at this time. An attempt to impose a norm without
such consensus or understanding is the act of a Road Menace.
Public policy in the United States since Roe v Wade permits abortion and considers judgment
about a particular abortion a private matter.
Efforts to restrict abortion contend that a fetus is a person and consequently the state has an
obligation to protect that persons life just as the life of any citizen. The shorthand expression
of this stance is, abortion is murder.30 Consequently public policy should prevent and punish
abortion just as it does murder.
The difficulty with that stance isas noted above--the personhood of a fetus is by no means
clear. Without that clarity, restricting access to abortion amounts to an invasion of a womans
privacy and a foreclosing of her choice. That implies a violation of the moral autonomy of
other persons. On the Moral Highway, that violates the basic Rules of the Road and is the
collision-causing action of a Road Menace.
29
Roe v Wade http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113 (accessed 11 07

2011)
30 Since this stand assumes the fetus is a person, something yet to be established, it can be used as an
example of the logical fallacy, begging the question.
Moral GPS
89
Therefore, once again, try to avoid any ethical discussion of abortion unless you are
confident that those with whom you share that discussion respect the Rules of the Road and
are willing to question their own assumptions.
Moral GPS
B. Truth issues
90
START
MENU
REST AREA
Supplement
Operators Manual
It is no accident that the Moral GPS puts truth-telling right at the top of the rules of the road:
Say what you mean and be consistent. On the Moral Highway, everything depends on dialog
oriented toward effective cooperative action. Deception is the manipulative tactic of a Road
Menace, directly violating the moral autonomy of others by depriving them of fact or insight
needed to make informed moral judgments. Deception undermines the Moral Highway itself.
Trip Tips
2. advertising
Truth was used as an example in the Choose Route step of the Moral GPS.
The Ethics of Care says truth is important because honesty is essential for relationships.
Lying manipulates another, violating her moral autonomy. That's why truth has the moral right
of way on the Care Route.
For Egoism, truth is important because you rely on trustworthy use of language in order to
pursue your self-interest. Reliable communication is in everyone's self-interest, and so truth
has the moral right of way on the Egoism path.
Truth is important for a Utilitarian because, if you tell an untruth in order to escape
embarrassment, you may increase your pleasure (at least diminish your pain) for the
moment. But if the person to whom you lied discovers the untruth, you will have lost that
person's trust. Not only that, you will sense that others are just as likely to lie to you if it is
convenient for them, so your trust in others is undermined. Truth ensures reliable
communication and trust for everyone, and so it has the moral right of way on the Utilitarian
path.
For the Natural Rights theory, if a person has a right to liberty, the exercise of that liberty
demands that she is able to base her decisions on reliable information. Untruth, for instance
government misinformation, undermines her right to liberty. Truth has the moral right of way
on the Natural Rights path.
Applying Kants Categorical Imperative, if everyone should always tell a lie if truth would be
embarrassing, then any statement may be truth or lie, and the whole point of telling a lie is
lost. Language becomes meaningless. Truth is important because any rule permitting untruth
is self-contradictory, and so morally wrong.
Confucius principle of Rectification of Names says, If language is not correct, then what is
said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done
remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray,
Moral GPS
91
the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in
what is said. This matters above everything.31 For Confucius, as for the Moral Highway,
deception undermines everything.
Confucius insight is echoed in a well-known eighteenth-century dictum: A lie can run around
the world before the truth can get its boots on.32 A perceptive novelist repeats the insight:
...one of Satan's most powerful tools was confusion. He'd mix truth with lies until there was
no way to know what to believe."33 (Yes, half-truths do violate the first Rule of the Road.)
Deception directly undermines the conditions necessary for making sound moral decisions
through constructive dialog. It is a direct attack on communicative rationality, the foundation
of the Moral Highway.
So Say what you mean and be consistent.
Be careful, though: to be truthful, it is not enough simply to say what you mean and be
consistent. You see, you could be wrong. Part of being truthful is
I could be wrong
being self-critical, recognizing your limits, admitting your mistakes,
and changing your mind when you realize youve made a mistake.
(Hence the fourth rule of the road, Signal your turns.)
Further, it is not enough that you tell the truth yourself. If deception can undermine everything
in a society, then you ought also to guard the truth from others deception. You need to be
informed, to obtain your information from reliable sources and from diverse sources.34 You
should also bone up on your logic, so that you can readily recognize logical fallacies and
misleading or pejorative language. Some newspapers provide a fact check service to
examine claims made in the public arenayet those services may themselves be biased.
Nevertheless, sometimes it is morally acceptable NOT to tell the truth. Part of respect for the
moral autonomy of others is the keeping of secrets. How do you know if you should keep
something secret?
Its none of your business. The person asking you to reveal something has no right to
that knowledge. A neighborhood busy-body looking for gossip fodder has no such
right. In war, an enemy interrogator has no such right. In business, a competitor
seeking trade secret information has no such right. By the way, if YOU are the
neighborhood busy-body, YOU have no such right.
You have promised another person to keep something secret.
Revealing something would cause harm to another person. (However, if the person
seeking the information has a clear right to know, you still ought to tell the truthfor
31
From The Analects of Confucius, Book 13, Verse 3 (James R. Ware, translated in 1980.)
http://www.analects-ink.com/mission/Confucius_Rectification.html (accessed 05 24 2012)
32 James Watt (1736) http://www.dictionary-quotes.com/a-lie-can-run-around-the-world-before-the-truth-can-getit-s-boots-on-james-watt/ (accessed 06 19 2012).
33
Karen Hall. Dark Debts (Random House, 1996), p. 366
Case in point: Fox News viewers are less informed than people who don't watch any news, according to a
new poll from Fairleigh Dickinson University. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-lessinformed-people-fairleigh-dickinson_n_1106305.html (accessed 03 06 2013).
34
Moral GPS
92
instance, a police detective investigating a crime that you know something about. The
exception to that, of course, is that you are not obliged to incriminate yourself.)
Caution: if you ought to keep something secret, simply refuse to answer. It is not prudent to
give false or misleading information. Jean-Paul Sartres ironic story The Wall tells of a
prisoner who knew where a revolutionary leader was hiding. When asked by the fascist
police, instead of saying no or I dont know, he said the man was hiding in another place. It
turned out the man had moved from where he had been to the very place the prisoner had
revealed.35 Stick with no or I dont know.
2. advertising
START
MENU
REST AREA
Supplement
Truth Issues
It is very sobering to realize that Adolph Hitlers propaganda machine took its inspiration from
commercial advertising of soap.36 Through mass media advertising, gigantic lies and
monstrous falsehoods can eventually be established as unquestioned facts, the difference
between truth and falsehood may cease to be objective and become a mere matter of power
and cleverness, of pressure and infinite repetition.37 Further, political advertising often runs
afoul of Master Kungs warning: the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence
there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.38 An insightful
novelist echoes Master Kung: ...one of Satan's most powerful tools was confusion. He'd mix
truth with lies until there was no way to know what to believe."39
While it may seem innocuous to flood the airwaves with nonsensical claims (The 1980s
Chevrolet: The heartbeat of America slogan comes to mind), there is a serious dark side to
such campaigns, for they can replace the objective world as a source of truth claims with
infinite repetition that creates a fictitious world sustained by unthinking habit. A result of that
dark side may be the two sets of facts problem that made 2011 U. S. Congress budget
negotiations so difficult.40
The ethics of advertising occupies a spectrum of shades of gray between an extreme that
clearly crosses a moral boundary (outright fraud) and the opposite extreme that risks no
moral ambiguity, simple unvarnished statement of a product specifications.
How can you navigate among those shades of gray?
35
http://chabrieres.pagesperso-orange.fr/texts/sartre_thewall.html (accessed 01 30 2013)
36
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (Harcourt, 1973) p. 345.

Ibid, p. 333.
38
From The Analects of Confucius, Book 13, Verse 3 (James R. Ware, translated in 1980.) http://www.analectsink.com/mission/Confucius_Rectification.html (accessed 05 24 2012)
39 Karen Hall. Dark Debts (Random House, 1996), p. 366.
37
40
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/apr/01/2-sets-of-facts-in-budget-dispute/ (accessed 01 30 2013)

Moral GPS
93
Remember the rules of the road that amount to respecting the moral autonomy of other
persons. Is the advertising you propose designed to aid another person in making a good
decision? Or is it designed to manipulate that person by misrepresenting the product or the
choice at issue, or by appealing to emotions or weaknesses that have no direct relation to it?
(The 1980s heartbeat campaign comes to mind.)
The 1980s heartbeat campaign was hugely successful, of course. The ethical question
arises, what constitutes success, and is the measure of success in advertising ethically
sound?
This is a difficult question to raise in todays business and political environment. That in turn
indicates that advertising is a moral danger zone, fraught with dilemmas and deep ditches.
Besides outright fraud, there are other advertising practices that clearly risk crossing
important moral boundaries. These are most evident in political ads, and among those most
in negative political ads.41 Perhaps some old-fashioned terms may help to point out those
risks: calumny and detraction.
Calumny is a false of unfounded representation about another person that is meant to injure
that persons reputation. The word malicious is often included in that definitiona matter of
evil intent. Slander, defamation, and libel are words with nearly the same meaning, more
often used in a legal context.
Detraction is like calumny except that the representation about another person may have
some foundation in fact. Neverthelessagain, except when the representation is made to a
specific person who had the right to knowthe effect of detraction is likely to be the same as
that of calumny, and the malicious intent the same as well.
A third area of serious moral risk is advertising products that may be harmful to people.
Cigarette advertising is the standard example: presenting as positive (healthy, sexy, adult,
sophisticated) something that, when used as it is designed to be used, is very likely to lead to
addiction and to cause serious disease.
If you have to navigate among advertisings shades of gray, maintain a high degree of moral
readiness. Be wary of people who say things like perception is reality or winning is
everything, for youre likely in the presence of a Road Menace.
41
A person often identified with such boundary-crossing advertising is Lee Atwater, who reputedly expressed
deep remorse over what he had done. See Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story, dir. Stefan Forbes, 1:28:00,
Interpositive Media, 2010, DVD.
Moral GPS
94
C. Justice issues
START
MENU
REST AREA
Supplement
Operators Manual
To be human means to exist in the world with other people. Thats why ethics and morality
cannot be merely personal: the moral life is a shared journeya Moral Highway we travel
together with all people of all times and all places. On that Moral Highway, the moral
minimum demands respect for the moral autonomy of all others and care for the road itself:
the world and its history.
Justice amounts to taking that moral minimum seriously.
Justice is therefore far more than legality. It is also more than mere fairnesssymbolized in
the balanced scales of Lady Justice. For the Moral GPS, justice is fundamentally accepting
responsibility toward the human community42
Trip Tips
1. economic justice
(business ethics)
(environment / resource use )
3. retributive justice
(crime and punishment)
4. social justice
(also international and global justice)
1. economic justice
START
MENU
REST AREA
Supplement
Justice Issues
The word Economy derives from the Greek oikos (house/home) and nomos (norm or rule).
Economy, at root, is therefore concerned with managing a home that sustains all members of
a family.
Economic justice is principally distributive justice (stop in at the Rest Area for an overview of
kinds of justice). Distributive justice seeks to ensure that every family member appropriately
shares the burdens and benefits of the home. It is that model, projected large, that should
govern the sharing of burdens and benefits in a society.
42 The Moral GPS builds here on the analysis of Joseph L. Allen, Love & Conflict: A covenantal Model of
Christian Ethics (University Press of America, 1995), pp. 153-180.
Moral GPS
95
Much of business ethics has to do with distributive justice and procedural justice. Business
ethics also has to do with professional ethics.
Tips:
1.Distributive justice has to do with fairness in sharing benefits and burdens within a society.
Appeals to justice are often prompted by blatant inequality in wealth, opportunity, or access to
services like health care. CAUTION: an egalitarian appeal to distributive justice, particularly
when it is expressed as an entitlement, can prompt a backlash (freeloaders!) from people
focused on a merit approach to justice. It is more prudent to address inequalities in terms of
contributive justice,
2. Be wary of approaches that attempt to reduce distributive justice to procedural justice
(Nozicks theory, discussed in relation to the Market Theory). Such an approach simply
ignores the concerns behind theories of distributive justice, providing a rationale for ignoring
societal conditions that cause unjustifiable suffering for some people.
3. Be wary of claims based on Friedmans idea that the only moral responsibility of business
is to make a profit for owners and stockholders (self-interest). Ethically prudent businessmen
include stakeholder concerns in the scope of moral responsibility. Even if another person
does not accept the stakeholder theory, it may be effective to contrast short-term and longterm self-interest. Stakeholder theory and long-term self-interest may indeed coincide
(Friedman himself admitted that the stakeholder-oriented Whole Foods approach is not
inconsistent with his concept.43 )
4. It may be useful to remember the root meaning of economy and use family relationships
as an analogy to clarify what is just in a society. So, for instance, a well-regulated family
would ensure that each and every child had enough to eat, even if that meant that the
parents ate a little less than they would like.
See http://www.moralcompass.com (business) (accessed 07 19 2011)

Also http://www.netimpact.org business practices for a sustainable world (accessed 07 19 2011)
43Rethinking
the Social Responsibility of Business (accessed 07 19 2011), a Reason debate featuring Milton
Friedman, Whole Foods' John Mackey, and Cypress Semiconductor's T.J. Rodgers. From Reason, October
2005
Moral GPS
96
(environment / resource use )
START
MENU
REST AREA
Supplement
Justice Issues
If basic justice is concerned with managing a home that sustains all members of a family,
ecological justice projects that model beyond a particular society to the entire human family
and to future generations. These dimensions of ecological justice are captured in two words:
development and sustainability. Development has to do with ensuring that all societies on
earth have the means to sustain their populations adequately and are using those means
appropriately. Sustainability has to do with ensuring that the earths resources and
environment are not corrupted and depleted, so that future generations will inherit from us a
habitable earth.
Tips:
1. Assumptions. Do those with whom you attempt dialog appreciate that all human beings
share the same Moral Highway? Or do they consider themselves isolated individuals (the
Unethical Egoist Road Menace) or sovereign nations which need not be concerned with
what is good for other nations (a species of the Societal Road Menace). Before you can
make any progress in a dialog over ecological justice, you will need to sort out those
assumptions. Be alert to a variant of these assumptionsthe Market Theory claiming that the
way to bring about the greatest general good is for each individual to pursue his/her own
good. Remember that the Market Theory is a consequentialist theory: it must be tested by
resultsmonitoring whether the general good is actually being enhanced.44
2. Symptomatic vs Structural. Poverty is endemic in much of what is euphemistically called
the developing world. If poverty is defined as the lack of the necessities of life, then the
appropriate response would be to provide those necessities to people who sufferdirect
assistance. In effect, this approach treats the symptoms of injustice: give the starving man a
fish. If, on the other hand, poverty is defined as capability deprivation,45 the appropriate
response is to address societal structures which impair peoples ability to sustain themselves:
teach and equip the starving man to fish. The latter approach builds on the concept of
contributive justice and focuses on the long term.
3. Internalize the Externalities! Nearly every activity produces unintended consequences
(see Driving Practice Case 2 for unanticipated earthquakes). For instance, if I tap a nearby
river to irrigate my crops, farmers downstream may find their irrigation diminished and the
town a few miles away may be hit with a water shortage. I have sustained the cost of the
irrigation network and I have profited from increased crop yields. But there are more costs to
my project than those I am paying. Others bear those burdens while I reap the benefits. It
would be only fair to demand that I compensate those downriver for the loss my action has
imposed on them, wouldnt it? Then I would pay the actual cost of my increased crop yields
and my profit would accurately reflect the value gained.
These spill-over consequences for other people, consequences that are not included in my
balance sheet, are called externalities. Air and water pollution, noise, health effects, and the
This issue of the Markets actual efficacy is at the core of much debate surrounding the 2012 presidential
election campaigns.
45 Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (Anchor, 1999), chapter 4
44
Moral GPS
97
like are typical negative externalities: real costs borne by people who do not share in the
benefits of the economic activity producing the externalities. When balance sheets portray the
costs of production/consumption and the benefits, externalities are not included, so that the
real costs are hidden.
One method of addressing externalities is government regulation of industries and
consumption to address, reduce, and perhaps correct those costs and harms. Ideally,
producer/consumer balance sheets should include all such costs. The Moral GPS provides
an avenue to move in that direction: seek stakeholder input into decisions.
4. Standing. One serious drawback to seeking stakeholder input into decisions is that in many
cases, externalities affect persons who will not even be born for another decade or three. You
see, if your externalities cause me harm, I can sue you, demonstrate damages, and ensure
that you compensate me (and thereby incorporate the costs in your balance sheet). But a
person not yet born has no legal standing in order to sue and so prevent such harm.
In many cases industries cause environmental damage where no personal harm can be
demonstrated in court. One direction that people have taken to remedy this problem is to
claim animal rightsto seek standing in court for animals whose habitat is being destroyed,
polluted or depleted. Animal rights advocates, therefore, may be seeking justice for more
than just animals.
retributive justice
(crime and punishment)
START
MENU
REST AREA
Supplement
Justice Issues
Theories of Retributive Justice differ in reasons provided to justify the punishment of

criminals.
Deserts theory holds that a criminal deserves punishment, for by his crime he has
somehow disturbed a societal balance that must be restored by his suffering appropriate
punishment. An eye for an eye . . . .
Utilitarian theory holds that punishing a criminal should serve the future good of the society
by deterring others from crime and so protecting society.
Restitution theory holds that the criminal must undergo punishment in order to restore to
the victim whatever was lost through the crime.
Rehabilitation theory holds that the purpose of the criminals punishment is to correct the
behavior of the criminal so that he may return to society as a positive and productive
member.
Crash Risk: Theories of Retributive Justice either have failed to realize their aim (deterrence,
restitution or rehabilitation) or have only a very unconvincing justification (that highly
speculative balance that is somehow intangibly restored by punishment). See the tip on
Capital Punishment.
This subject is a potential congested area that needs very careful steering and serious public
discussion. This need is acute in the United States, particularly in relation to questions of
racial disparities in prison population, ratio of imprisoned persons to population in comparison
with other nations, and the risk of abuse particularly in privately-run prisons.
Moral GPS
98
social justice
(also international and global justice)
Social Justice can be defined as "justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities,
and privileges within a society"46 It is an umbrella term, including most other forms of justice.
Social Justice is the ethical principle underlying the common good.
Since for the Moral GPS, justice is fundamentally accepting responsibility toward the human
community,47 all considerations of justice here are in the context of social justice. It should be
evident that economic justice and ecological or environmental justice are aspects of social
justice, the latter because the environment sustains the life of the human community.
Of crucial importance is what society is considered in relation to social justice. Since the
Moral Highway on which we all travel is not limited to a particular region or nation, social
justice must be international and global.
It is too easy for someone to understand the above definition of social justice simply as
distributive justice, and from there to conjure the specter of the welfare state. To speak of
equitable opportunities and privileges, however, also implies contributive justice: ensuring
that all are empowered to contribute their best to the common good. Oppression and poverty
are not simply forms of suffering to be alleviated; they are debilitating to the health of the
whole (global) society. Hence No one can be perfectly free till all are free, as Herbert
Spencer stated.48
Social justice also addresses issues of discrimination by which persons are excluded from full
participation in society. In the Moral GPS, this is called a breakdown. What Social Justice
reveals is that the breakdown is not of a particular vehicle; it is of the Moral Highway itself.
Social Justice is therefore an essential dimension of the entire shared moral journey that is
reflected in the Moral GPS.
Some sources:
Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. Anchor (Random House), 1999.
Singer, Peter. One World: The Ethics of Globalization. Yale University Press, 2002
http://www.globalcompact.org (accessed 03/26/2013)
http://www.globalethics.org (accessed 10/28/2011)
http://www.igc.org international efforts toward justice and peace (accessed 03/26/2013)
http://www.apc.org social justice and sustainable development (accessed 03/26/2013)
http://www.netimpact.org business practices for a sustainable world(accessed 03/26/2013)
declaration on a global ethic
http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/ethic.pdf (accessed 03/26/2013)
United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html (accessed 03/26/2013)
46
The New Oxford American Dictionary definition.

See Note 42 above.
48
Social Statics (1851), p. 456 Martin Luther King, Jr., made good use of this concept.
47
Moral GPS
99
D. Professional ethics
START
MENU
REST AREA
Supplement
Operators Manual
A profession is an occupation or vocation that requires specialized education, training, or skill

that is placed in service to other persons who pay for that service.Traditionally, medicine, law,
and education have been considered professions. Currently, as specialized areas of
expertise multiply, it makes little sense to seek a definitive list of professions. Further, a
person in any occupation may act in a professional manner, i.e. consistently improving skills
and updating information relevant to that occupation. Acting in a professional manner implies
acting with a degree of independence (unlike the unskilled laborers who simply do what they
are told to do). Major professions guard their independence, typically by professional
organizations (e.g., the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the
American Association of University Professors. These associations set and maintain
standards for their members (for instance, codes of ethics) and ordinarily are self-policing.
One occupation that is becoming more and more professional is business, particularly as
careers in business require increasingly specialized education and training. Included in that
process is a growing stress on ethics in business (doing well by doing good), partially in
response to the ethical scandals of the 1970s and 1980s, and again of the first decade of the
current century. No one any longer would facetiously contrast business and ethics.
Trip Tips
The distinctive moral responsibility of a professional
A distinctive relationship arises between professionals and people who seek their services
(call them clients even though they may be patients). The professional has an expertise
that the client lacks. The relationship therefore is not between equals; the client is in a weaker
position, in a way vulnerable. The client must trust the professional.
Such a relationship is called fiduciary because it is a bond of trust. The client entrusts his
interest to the professional. The professional in turn faithfully applies her skills to serve the
needs of the client. In doing so, the professional must be open and truthful, maintain
confidentiality of client information, avoid any conflict of interest, and remain within the limits
of her professional expertise.
The profession of real estate is an apt example, particularly because confusion about
fiduciary relationships caused havoc with the moral reputation of that profession. Not too long
ago, if I went to a real estate agent to help me purchase a house, I would not have been that
agents client. The agents actual client was the seller of whatever house I selected. That
meant the agent served the interest of the seller, revealed to the seller whatever I had
disclosd about my financial ability, and so led me to pay the highest price I could afford for a
house that the agent prodded me to buy. When I realized what had transpired, of course I
was angrybecause I had thought the agent was supposed to serve my interest.
The real estate profession now clearly distinguishes buyer agency from seller agency,
ensuring a fiduciary relationship between agent and buyer. The agent is to serve my interests
as a buyer, not the sellers. He keeps my financial information confidential in price negotiation
Moral GPS
100
and aims for me to purchase a home that I choose at the lowest price. He avoids confict of
interest (for instance, if I ask to see a house for which he is sellers agent, he will (or ought to)
advise me to turn to another agent).
You may be sensing the particular moral challenge posed by this professional relationship.
You see, the agents commission is tied to the sale price of the house. Moreover, the full
commission paid by the seller is split between the sellers agent and the buyers agent. So
the agent who seeks the lowest price for me is lowering his own commission, and if he is the
sellers agent and so refers me to another in order to avoid conflict of interest, he is cutting
his own income in half.
There you have it: the moral responsibility of a professional is to act in the clients
interest, even when that conflicts with the professionals immediate self-interest.
Granted, a professional may still be motivated by self-interest (egoism is, after all, the primary
ethical assumption of the market), but that would have to be a long-term self-interest in
maintaining professional integrity.
The term corruption applies to the professional who places self-interest above the clients
interestthe physician who performs a profitable procedure that the patient doesnt need, the
lawyer who spends needless time on a case to increase his fees, the professor who inflates
grades so that his courses will be more popular, the real estate agent who manipulates
clients to increase his own commissions.
A professional organization (an association, or simply a business enterprise) is responsible
for maintaining the integrity of the profession and for fostering professional integrity in all its
members. Hence we can talk of the moral character of a particular firm or institution. Many
professions (real estate, for instance) require licensing by the state and the state may
establish a board to monitor the integrity of the profession.
The one tip you need for traveling the Moral Highway as a professional, then, is always act
in the clients best interest. And how does the professional know what is really in the
clients best interest? That brings us back around to the principle of informed consent, The
professional must always respect the moral autonomy of the client. In brief, ask.
Internet Sources regarding some professions

http://www.elon.edu/andersj/ethics.html (information technology ethics) (accessed 08 24 2011)
http://www.findlaw.com/01topics/14ethics (law)(accessed 08 24 2011)
http://www.journalism.indiana.edu/Ethics (journalism cases) (accessed 08 24 2011)
http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/www/ethics.html (journalism) (accessed 08 24 2011)
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/2011_NEA_Handbook_Code_of_Ethics_of_the_Education_Profession.pdf
(education) (accessed 08 24 2011)
Moral GPS
101
REST AREA
START
MENU
go to Flow Chart
OPERATOR'S MANUAL
Moral Values and Theories

Related Principles
Glossary
Notes
Internet resources
MY GPS
Moral GPS
102
START
MENU
REST AREA
go to Flow Chart
OPERATOR'S MANUAL
The Tourist Information Center is an arena where you and others can
discuss any adjustments you need to make in your route.
Here you can find the resources you need the kinds of things that count as
good reasons to help people make sense of moral issues.
Youll notice that this Tourist Info Center is an A-frame structure two roof-walls
that lean on each other over an open floor area. That architecture reflects how
moral theories need each other. Each value or theory by itself can be crashprone. Balanced in relation to each other, values and theories can help guide you
through moral dilemmas.
Moral Values and Theories

Values
Theories
Related Principles
About Alternate Routes
(Often alternate routes arent either-or; theyre both-and.)
Dilemmas and Methods of Resolving Dilemmas
(Ready-made Detours: Logical Strategies.)
Helping Rookie Drivers
(Theories of Moral Development)
Critical Thinking
Creativity
Moral GPS
103
Moral Values
START
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info
Moral values are aspects of our shared living that are considered important. Positive
values (good) are to be sought and fostered. Negative values (bad) are to be avoided and
eliminated (as much as possible). You can appeal to a value as a basis for a moral claim:
Drive safelyyou may save a life.
Note that different people may agree on values while not agreeing on why those values
are important (i.e., the theories that support the values).
Here are a few values that many people may share (a complete list could be endless):
It is morally important that
a person respects the lives and health of others
a person tells the truth
a person keeps promises
a person deals fairly with others
a person does not harm another if it can be avoided
a person does not interfere with anothers legitimate freedom
Many values are global in scope. For instance, it is morally important that:
all people have enough food and health care to maintain their lives
all people and nations live secure from unjust attack
no people are deliberately excluded from the global community
no person is subjected to torture
Such global values are expressed in the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human
Rights.
Note that some values will have balancing values, alternate routes:
Tell the truth, unless that would mean breaking a promise.
Keep promises, unless that would cause serious harm to another.
You need to do more than cite a value in order to justify a decision (see Accountability). Note
that when values conflict, you will have to determine which values are more important than
which others. Moral theories can help you there, but you cant do it in the abstract.
What is a hierarchy of values? Some values are more basic and provide the ground for
other values. So, for instance, it is important that people have enough food and health care
because it is important to respect the lives and health of others. Some values are important in
themselves (intrinsic goods), like life and health. Other values are important only as means
to obtain intrinsic goods (instrumental or extrinsic goods), like money. Each person
probably has a particular hierarchy of values. You, too. (go to MyGPS)
WHY are these valueseven the basic onesmorally important? You will have to find an
answer to that question if another person does not think a specific value is morally important.
Answering the WHY question requires moral theories.
Back to Main Routes/Values
(next)
Moral GPS
104
Moral Theories
START
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info
Operators Manual
Theories are the main roads of ethical thinking over the centuries. They provide
strong motives for a person to live morally. More important for you as you try to
sort through moral dilemmas: they reflect the kinds of things that count as good
reasons for appealing to the reason and freedom of others in ethical dialog.
Theories that provide Good Reasons in moral dialog.

Care
Consequentialist Theories
(Judging by results)
Deontological Theories
(Judging by prior principles)
A Theory that provides Motives to live morally.

Virtue Ethics
Moral GPS
105
Care
The Theory
Crash Risks
Alternate Routes
The Theory
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
Return to Main Routes/Care
A weakness of most traditional ethical theories is their abstractness. While this quality may
help to ensure impartiality, it may also lead to indifference.49 A person just applying rules may
become blind to the concrete human situation of persons affected by his decisions.
Feminist thinkers corrected this weakness by stressing that ethical decisions are made within
networks of relationships. Authentic moral responses should not ignore relationships. Rather,
the most basic ethical responsibility is caring for others within those relationships.
The Ethic of Care therefore gives priority to the Golden Rule (Treat others as you would
wish to be treated), but insists on understanding what it is like to be that other. Without that
understanding, the Golden Rule can allow moral bigotry, imposing your own preferences as if
they were the norm for all others.
The Ethic of Care requires that a person seek to understand a situation from others points of
view. Ones level of moral, even spiritual development, might be indicated by how wide is her
capacity for care, for empathy. In other words, how far-reaching is her network of
relationships? How far-reaching is her ability to include others on our GPS "road map"?
As a balancing theory to other ethical approaches, the Ethic of Care can offset the crash risks
of consequentialist or nonconsequentialist approaches by asking, How would I like to be on
the receiving end of this decision?
Note also that our capacity to empathize with others includes compassion--recognition of a
positive duty to overcome conditions that prevent people from traveling toward their
destinations on the Moral Highway. (See breakdowns and discrimination). That duty includes
efforts to help traffic obstructions to get up to speed. Moreover, this theory emphasizes that
human beings are essentially participants in a human community, so that a claim of individual
rights must correlate with care to foster and protect the intersubjective community.
(A caution is needed here. It may be misleading to list the Ethic of Care among ethical
theories, for theories are typically abstract rational structures claiming some kind of universal
validity. Care is rather a moral approach, a distinctive way of responding to moral challenges.
Care shifts the focus from abstract and universal principles toward particular and personal
relationships. There is a risk in trying to address large-scale issues on the basis of care: what
is a concrete approach can be diluted into a somewhat abstract moral motive, a vague
virtue.50 )
Crash Risks
If our ethical focus is on concrete relationships rather than abstract universal values and
theories, it is possible that we may fail to see the ethical big picture. By doing good in an
immediate relationship we might do a big wrong.
See Hanna Arendts concept of determinate judgment.
Fiona Robinson, Globalizing Care: Ethics, Feminist Theory, and International Relations (Westview Press,
1999), p. 44.
49
50
Moral GPS
106
In a moral dilemma, there are likely to be several others whose good we should seek or to
whom harm should be avoided. Which other should be the focus of our empathy? In
selecting one other, dont we exclude (and so harm) other others? The Ethic of Care
provides no way of prioritizing others except by the closeness of our relationship with them,
and that can result in favoritism and unfair choices.
Alternate Routes
Utilitarian theory would counteract the risk of seeking the good too narrowly. While I seek to
care for my immediate neighbor, I must also ask how my action may affect the good of the
wider human community.
Any theory capable of assessing priority among values would enable the Ethic of Care to
move beyond paralysis when there are competing others to serve. A Natural Law approach
suggests levels of good, but at the risk of unconscious moral bigotry. Perhaps Discourse
Ethics is best, calling on us to establish priority through dialog among stakeholders in the
decision and so emphasizing the intersubjective context of good decisions. Some Utilitarian
approaches provide ways of calculating comparative goods in seeking the greatest good
for the greatest number. An important moral boundary to the quest to do good for one other
is the Natural Rights theory: one may seek the good of an other to the extent that doing so
does not violate the (negative) rights of other others.
Moral GPS
107
(Judging by Results)
START
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
Egoism
(Results for me)
Utilitarianism
(Results for The Greatest Number.)
Moral GPS
108
Egoism
(Results for me)
The Theory
Crash Risks
Alternate Routes
Market Theory
START
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
The Theory (See also Main Routes)

Egoism is a results-based approach that evaluates proposed actions in terms of foreseen
benefits or harms that may come to the self.
Psychological egoism is a descriptive theory claiming that all persons always act according to
their individual self-interest. This is not an ethical theory. It may, rather, present a moral
challenge (for instance, to the Social Contract theory).
Universal Ethical Egoism holds that everyone should always act in his or her own self
interest. This theory provides a justification for a decision: it serves my self-interest (i.e.,
increase my well-being; decrease my suffering). It also implies respect for others right to
pursue their own self-interesthence the metaphor of a level playing field used by those
who espouse this theory. One well-known form of this theory is Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
The advantage of this theory is that it provides a justification for decisions that permits each
person to define the good or right for him/herself, thus respecting individual moral autonomy.
It avoids the pitfall of having to define what is good for another person, a subtle form of moral
bigotry.
Unethical egoism lacks that essential respect for the moral autonomy of others. As an
egoist, I may hold that everyone should always act in my self-interest. Obviously this position
does not rise to the level of an ethical theory. It is the assumption of a sociopath.
As an egoist, I may hold that I intend to act in my own self-interest, but I care nothing about
what others should do. This position does not rise to the level of an ethical theory, because it
is of no use in providing justification to others for a decision. It is the assumption of a Road
Menace.
Crash Risks
One weakness that egoism shares with other results-based theories is that its basic value is
foreseen consequences of an action. Between the projection of consequences and actual
results yawns a gap of uncertainty: uncertainty about what will actually result from a decision
(hence the term unforeseen consequences) and uncertainty about whether the actual
results will really benefit the person as expected. Related to this weakness is the difficulty
human beings have in identifying what is really in their best interest, especially their long-term
interest. A fully responsible results-based ethic requires that ALL consequences of a decision
be taken into account, so that there are NO unforeseen consequences. This is virtually
impossible.
A serious weakness of universal ethical egoism is inconsistency. This arises in relation to
teaching another person about the theory. If it is in Johns best interest that Tom does not act
in his own self-interest, then in order to act according to the theory, John would have to
Moral GPS
109
remain silent about the theory whenever Tom is nearby. Hence the theory cannot at times be
taught to others without self-contradiction.
Alternate Routes
Utilitarian theory balances the narrow self-interest of egoism by insisting that the basic value
is not individual self-interest but societys best interest: the greatest good for the greatest
number.
Capitalist theory (Market theory) proposes that an economy based on universal egoism will
produce utilitarian results. For this position to be accountable and so have ethical validity, the
actual results of capitalist systems must be examined to verify that the system does in fact
produce the greatest good for the greatest number without violating the rights of the lesser
number. Some capitalist theorists (esp. Friedman) deny the ethical relevance of actual results
and so undermine the ethical credibility of capitalist theory. It is, after all, a results-based
theory.
Natural Rights theories provide a "guard rail" for avoiding possible excesses of egoism by
insisting that my pursuit of self-interest is justifiable only so long as I do not violate the rights
of other persons.
The Ethic of Care (Golden Rule) inverts egoism by making promotion of anothers selfinterest the norm for my decision.
Return to Main Routes/Egoism
START
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
Market Theory
Simply put, the Market Theory holds that egoist practice produces utilitarian results in a
society. In his 1776 work The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith proposed that if every
individual seeks his own security and directs his efforts toward products of value only with the
intention of his own gain, the general result will serve the public interest. In pursuing his own
gain, each person is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his
intention.51 Smith proposed further that government has a very limited role in promoting the
common good, other than ensuring the freedom of the market.
Current understanding of the Market Theory, particularly its ethical implications, is influenced
by the work of Milton Friedman. In a 1970 essay, Friedman claimedbasing his ideas on
those of Adam Smith--that "there is one and only one social responsibility of businessto use
its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within
the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without
deception or fraud."52 On that basis, Friedman argued that business executives ought to
consider operator and stockholder interests only, exclusive of other stakeholder interests.
Further, since according to Friedman, one mans good is another mans evil, the free market
is the only way to determine what is good for a society. Hence the primary moral criterion for
51
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (London 1776) book IV chapter II.
Friedman, The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. New York Times Magazine,
September 13, 1970.
52 Milton
Moral GPS
110
business ethics is profit. Secondary criteria have to do with the rules of the gamein effect,
ensuring that no one is prevented from acting in his or her own self interest. The social good
is best attained by the free market unhindered by non-market social or governmental
concerns.
A theory of justice closely linked to Market Theory was proposed by Robert Nozick.53 In
contrast to theories of distributive justice like the egalitarian theory of John Rawls, Nozick
focuses on the process by which goods/benefits are acquired. If holdings are acquired and
transferred by procedures that are free from fraud or coercion (like Friedmans rules of the
game), then the distribution of goods and benefits is just. If acquisition or transfer has been
fraudulent or coercive, then that injustice must be rectified. Otherwise, there is no criterion for
redistributing goods or benefits.
Crash Risks
If indeed the free market is the only way to determine what is good for a society, doesnt the
Market Theory involve circular logic? After all, this is a consequentialist theory. Therefore
shouldnt actual good results, foreseen and then verified, be the criterion by which
alternatives are morally evaluated? But if the market itself is the only way to determine what
is good, then isnt the market justifying the market?
If a person regards the operation of the market as self-justifying, then hasnt that person
transformed the Market Theory into a deontological theory instead of a consequentialist one?
Market operation then begins to resemble Kants rule of law, requiring a kind of blind faith and
duty that excludes concern for consequences. On what basis could we ever speak of a
market failure? Hasnt the market become absolute and unquestionable? Wouldnt this turn
Adam Smiths pragmatic insight into an ideology? (Marketolatry?) Someone holding to
Market Theory risks becoming a one-way driver, perhaps even a Road Menace.54
Alternate Routes
We can remedy the Market Theorys first crash risk by a sound criterion for evaluating the
market. Here we confront Friedmans moral relativism, that one mans good is another mans
evil so all judgment must be left to the free market. For a sound criterion we can turn to the
rules of the road, which sketch the necessary conditions for even talking about moral
issues. From that basis we can estimate to some degree what is good for others. We can
also identify serious violations of that goodconditions that exclude people from traveling the
Moral Highway. The rules of the road are based in Discourse Ethics. It is a short step from
these criteria to considerations of Social Justice and the Common Good.
Another alternate route looks to theories of Justice which address conditions that exclude.
Turn also to a theory of Natural Rightsconsidered now not just as individual rights but as
the necessary conditions for the Moral Highway to function at all. For that matter, conditions
that exclude from the Moral Highway also exclude from the market, tilting the level playing
field. So we have ample criteria by which to evaluate the operation of the market.
Robert Nozick, The Entitlement Theory, 1974, excerpted in Tom Beauchamp and Norman Bowie, Ethical
Theory and Business (Prentice Hall, 2001), 657-61.
53
54In this context, note the interpretation that the Republican stance in the June, 2011, budget/debt ceiling
impasse is not economic; it's theological. June 30, 2011, interview with Fareed Zakaria on NPRs Fresh Air.
Moral GPS
111
Now we have to remedy the second crash risk, that of a free-market advocate becoming a
one-way driver and even a Road Menace.
Part of that risk has to do with a shift in basic assumptions from Adams Smiths worldview to
Milton Friedmans. Friedman identifies the good as profit, and that profit belongs to
operators or stockholders. He is hostile to a stakeholder theory of business responsibility.
Friedman argues accordingly that a business executives concern for anyones interest other
than operators or stockholders is inappropriate, even collectivist and subversive. But
Adam Smiths concept of self-interest is considerably broader and is linked to moral virtue, so
that ...to feel much for others, and little for ourselves, to restrain our selfish, and to indulge
our benevolent affections, constitutes the perfection of human nature....55 Further, Smith
evokes a kind of stakeholder theory himself, saying that ... the interest of the producer ought
to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.56
Far from the individualistic egoism envisioned by Friedman, Smith contends that even the
most selfish person has some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of
others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it,
except the pleasure of seeing it.57 This is a far cry from greed is good.
In order to be consistent with Adam Smiths insight, then, a person acting on the basis of the
egoist theory would have to be concerned with others interests. At the very least, an ethical
egoist must allow for others to seek their respective self-interest. That requires at least a
basic respect for others moral autonomythe primary antidote to the Road Menace risk.
Ideally, the egoist should care, and so the Ethic of Care is the ideal alternate route for the
Market Theory.
Return to Main Routes/Egoism
55
Adam Smith, A Theory of Moral Sentiment (London 1761), p. 32

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, book IV chapter VIII.
57
Adam Smith, A Theory of Moral Sentiment (London 1761), p. 1. Note that Smith is known as a Scottish
Communitarianphilosopher.
56
Moral GPS
112
Utilitarianism
(Results for The Greatest Number.)
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
The Theory
Crash Risks
Alternate Routes
Utilitarianism holds that everyone should perform that act or follow that moral policy that will
bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This is the greatest
happiness principle, though its classic expression (from Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart
Mill) spoke in terms of pleasure: maximize pleasure, minimize pain.
Pleasure and pain are to be understood in terms of quality as well as quantity, so that it would
be acceptable to sacrifice a greater quantity of lower-level pleasure (beer parties every night)
to a single higher-order pleasure (achieving a university degree).
"ACT utilitarianism" focuses on a particular act or decision, since this view holds that it is
impossible to set rules or policies to cover multiple situations. The norm for good then would
be that act which promises to bring about the most beneficial, or least harmful, results for the
greatest number of people in these specific circumstances.
"RULE utilitarianism" focuses on the general rules or policies that can govern multiple
actions, either within a limited group or institution orpossiblyfor all. The norm for a good
policy is that it promises to bring about the most beneficial, or least harmful, results for the
greatest number of people over many (even all) circumstances.
Crash Risks
One weakness that utilitarianism shares with other results-based theories is that its basic
value is foreseen consequences of an action. Between the projection of consequences and
actual results yawns a gap of uncertainty: uncertainty about what will actually result from a
decision (hence the term unforeseen consequences) and uncertainty about whether the
actual results will really benefit the person as expected. Related to this weakness is the
difficulty human beings have in identifying what is really in their best interest, especially their
long-term interest. A fully responsible consequentialist ethic requires that ALL consequences
of a decision be taken into account, so that there are NO unforeseen consequences. This is
virtually impossible.
Utilitarianism also tries to project what is good for others: a challenge at best, at worst a
lapse into moral bigotry. Utilitarianism is useful only when all stakeholders share a consensus
on what is "good." But then utilitarianism is reduced to merely prudence, determining the
most effective means to the identified good.
A serious risk of utilitarian thinking is reductionism: limiting or reducing the kinds of things
that count for good reasons only to measurable or monetary terms. In its crudest form, this
thinking leads to cost-benefit analysis, excluding non-monetary values (e.g. human life or
happiness) and considering only what has a dollar value. Remember the Occidental Widgets
example (OW).
Moral GPS
113
Related to this risk is that utilitarianism focuses on the results, or the ends (goals) of an action
and does not say anything about what means are legitimate in pursuing those ends. The
end justifies the means. An adequate ethical theory should consider means and motives as
well as ends.
Another serious risk is that, if the norm of good is the greatest good for the greatest number,
what happens to the interests of the minority? Utilitarianism can lead to a tyranny of the
majority with unfortunate consequences for the minority.
An occupational hazard of all ACT theories is that they provide no generally applicable
guides for decision-makers, but require that one begin anew with each situation. Moreover, it
is difficult to educate others in such a theory, particularly those who are less mature in their
moral development ("traffic obstructions").
An occupational hazard of all RULE theories is that it is difficult to propose a rule that is
applicable to all human beings and situations, given the diversity of people and road
conditions.
Alternate Routes
The weakness of using foreseen consequences as a norm can be balanced by any theory
that focuses on principles that are independent of results: any deontological theory or the
Ethic of Care.
The risk of unforeseen consequences can be balanced by responsible investigation into the
longer-term and wider-rangingglobalconsequences of a proposed action.
The difficulty of determining what is good for others can be addressed by seeking consensus
through dialog (See Discourse Ethic).
The related risks of reductionism, ignoring the morality of means, and allowing harm to a
minority can be balanced principally by invoking individual human rights as a moral boundary
limiting the pursuit of good results. The Golden Rule would also pose such a limit: how would
I like to be one of the persons affected by this decision?
The hazards of ACT and RULE theories can be resolved through the distinction between
abstract theory (should level) and application (ought level). The RULE has the moral right
of way, and at the ACT level the decision-maker must evaluate how applicable the rule is to
the particular road conditions.
Return to Main Routes/Utilitarianism
(next)
Moral GPS
114
(Judging by principles)
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
Natural Rights Theory

(Act in accordance with everyones natural rights)
(Linked with justice respect everyone elses natural rights).
Social Contract Theory

(Act in accordance with norms of ideal moral community)
Kantian Duty Ethic

(Be sure that the rule allowing ones action can be universal)
Discourse ethic
(Act according to norms for rational dialog)
Religion: Divine Command theory

(Act according to the revealed Laws of God)
Natural Law theory

(Act according to the design of human nature)
Moral GPS
115
Natural Rights Theory

(Act in accordance with everyones natural rights)
(Linked with justice --respect everyone elses natural rights).
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
The Theory
Crash Risks
Alternate Routes
"Rights of Man" was a rallying cry for political change in the Enlightenment eraan era that
produced the American Revolution and the Constitution of the United States.
Reacting against oppressive, hierarchical social arrangements, thinkers focused on natural
rights of individual persons as the foundation for morality and politics.
Natural or human rights are considered universal, applying to all by virtue of their being
human persons. Since they are based not on civil law but in the very nature of human
persons as moral agents, these rights are absolute and can be held over against state
authority. Since they belong to a human person as such, they are inalienable and cannot be
surrendered. Since they are absolute, they are indefeasible and cannot be subordinated to
any other value or principle. They are self-justifying, and are the logical premise for any
societal or legal organization. Based on natural rights, persons can make claims over against
governments and laws.
At a minimum, human persons as moral agents have rights to liberty or noninterference: the
ability to pursue choices without external coercion or obstruction. Human persons therefore
also have rights not to have the necessary conditions for liberty taken from them, such as life.
Hence liberty requires a right to life.
Such rights of noninterference are negative rights. Such rights obligate others NOT to do
anything that violates my right. However, others have no positive obligation to do anything to
foster my well-being.
Rights theories that call for empowerment understand some rights as positive. If I have a right
to liberty, I also have a right to be provided with the necessary means to exercise that right,
e.g., education. Such positive rights do place upon others, or on governments, positive
obligations to provide for them. So a right to education obliges a society to provide schooling.
Many of the rights outlined in the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights are
such positive rights. (One interesting development is the right to Internet access. It is a
negative right, i.e. condemning interference with peoples access, and it may be a positive
right, i.e. requiring that internet access be provided in a society. )
Crash Risks
Natural Rights theory focuses on individual rights. While this stress corrected oppressive
social policies in authoritarian states, it risks forgetting the social character of human
existence. Natural rights theory therefore links easily with universal ethical egoism.
Moral GPS
116
It is much easier to obtain consensus on negative rights than it is on positive rights. Therefore
rights theory may be useful in identifying moral boundaries, but it is less useful in setting a
positive direction for action.
If natural rights are inalienable and indefeasible, in effect absolute, rights theory provides no
reasonable way of resolving conflicts between such absolute rights. The theory itself provides
a list of rights (which varies from theorist to theorist) but no consistent way to establish priority
among these rights.
Rights theory claims that the existence of human rights is self-evident. In fact, rights theory
may depend on other theories to convince others of the existence of human rights. Further,
despite the existence of the Universal Declaration, the practical recognition of such rights
depends largely on a person having legal status in a state that respects human rights.58
Alternate Routes
Rights theory needs to be balanced by theories that stress the social character of human
existence, such as social contract theories or theories of justice.
A positive balance to rights theory would come from a stress on duty, or positive obligations.
Likewise an ethic of care provides a positive direction for action.
A contemporary theory that can provide an interpersonal foundation for rights theory is
discourse ethics.
Return to Main Routes/Natural Rights
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
Universal Declaration on Human Rights

Summary (Complete text http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html, accessed May 31, 2011)
1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
2. Everyone is entitled to all rights and freedoms, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour,
sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
status.
3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.
5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the
law.
8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating
the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
58
See Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism ( Harcourt, 1973 ) chapter 9.

Moral GPS
117
10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
11. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.
13. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state;
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
14. Everyone has the right to asylum from persecution in other countries
15. Everyone has the right to a nationality
16. Men and women of full age, only with the free and full consent, have the right to marry and to
found a family. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to
protection by society and the State.
17. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall
be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
20. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
21. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, and the right of equal access
to public service in his country. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of
government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections.
22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and realization of the
economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his
personality.
23. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of
work and to protection against unemployment. Everyone has the right to equal pay for equal work,
to just remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity.
Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions.
24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and
periodic holidays with pay.
25. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself
and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social
services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood,
old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Motherhood and childhood
are entitled to special care and assistance. All children shall enjoy the same social protection.
26. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and
fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Higher education shall be equally
accessible to all on the basis of merit. Education shall be directed to the full development of the
human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or
religious groups
27. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community.
Moral GPS
118
28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in
this Declaration can be fully realized.
29. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his
personality is possible.
In June 2011, the United Nations General Assembly included access to the Internet as a universal
human right.59
(next)
59
See http://documents.latimes.com/un-report-internet-rights/ (accessed June 22, 2011).

Moral GPS
119
Justice
START
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
The Theory
Crash Risks
Alternate Routes
The Theory
Justice or Fairness is a value. It is also a theory closely related to the Natural Rights theory
and the Social Contract theory. There are several categories of justice.
A. economic justice relates to equitable distribution of economic benefits and burdens.
B. ecological justice relates to stewardship of the environment and use of resources
C. retributive justice relates to crime and punishment.
D. Social justice relates to enabling all persons and groups to share fully in society.
E. International justice relates to fair interaction among nations or across national
boundaties.
Theories of Justice focus on economic or distributive justice . Theories of Distributive Justice
differ in identifying the basis for determining fair shares.
o Egalitarian theories hold that all benefits and burdens should be shared equally
among all members of a society.
o Theories of merit hold that benefits should be greater for those who produce more,
who have sacrificed to obtain education for their professions, who willingly take more
risks or do tasks most people want to avoid, or who have served longer in their
profession.
o Theories based on need hold that benefits should be greater for those with greater
need. That need may be private, e.g., a patient requiring cardiac surgery would be
entitled to more medical resources than a patient with a cold. Or that need may be
public, e.g., the public need for education would justify greater rewards for teachers
than for people with comparable training and skill in other professions.
Egalitarian theories contend that unequal distribution of benefits in a society requires
justification in terms of overall benefit to the society. Equal distribution has the moral right of
way. A wide gap between rich and poor in a society is therefore wrong, and the burden of
proof rests on societal authoritiesor upon those who have the greater benefitseither to
justify the inequality or, more likely, to change it. John Rawls' theory assumes a modified
egalitarian theory of justice.
A variant of egalitarian theories is called a theory of contributive justice.60 Here the
emphasis is no longer on everyone receiving their fair share of societal benefits. Rather the
emphasis is on everyone having the duty to, and therefore being empowered to, contribute
toward societal goods. Such a theory will support positive rights, e.g., to education and to
employment.
60
See Paul Gomberg, How to Make Opportunity Equal: Race and Contributive Justice (London: WileyBlackwell, 2006). The term contributive justice appears earlier in the U. S. Catholic Bishops 1986 letter,
Economic Justice for All, article 71. http://www.usccb.org/upload/economic_justice_for_all.pdf (accessed
09/12/2011)
Moral GPS
120
Theories of Procedural Justice hold that just and fair results cannot be guaranteed and so
they should not be the focus of concern. The best that can be achieved is to ensure just and
fair processes and procedures, fair rules of the game, so that everyone has an equal
chance to obtain benefits.
In the context of law, procedural justice calls for fair trials with rights of appeal for violation of
proper procedures. In the economic context, procedural justice calls for clear contracts, a
level playing field, equal opportunity, and prohibits discrimination and taking unfair
advantage (for instance, insider trading of stocks).
Crash Risks
The application of any of the theories of distributive justice is likely to create a distribution that
is unjust in the view of another theory. So egalitarian distribution may result in persons who
have greater need being deprived while persons with lesser need have superfluous benefits.
Perfectly just distribution appears to be an unattainable goal.
Theories of procedural justice deliberately refrain from ensuring that their application will
produce just and fair actual conditions in a society. Doing right may not achieve the greatest
good. The norm, equal opportunity, not equal results, risks ignoring results and so fostering
what other approaches to justice would condemn as unjust.
Alternate Routes
Utilitarian approaches to questions of justice would require that any policy seeking to be just
and fair be evaluated according to its actual results. For instance, an equal opportunity
policy in employment would be evaluated in terms of the actual employment rate of affected
groups (e.g. ethnic minorities). If inequities persist, a utilitarian theory would require a change
in such policies.
An Ethic of Care insists that all persons be respected and considered as particular
individuals, not as "instances" of "humanity" that are more or less interchangeable. Theories
of justice applied without that concern may do serious harm by overlooking the particular
circumstances, needs, and strengths of individual persons.
While most theories of justice are comparatively recent (post-Enlightenment), one ancient
notion may be helpful: the concept of mishpat 61 (justice) in the Old Testament. Justice here
is that kind of behavior required by the covenant.62 In the covenantal view, one finds
oneself within an already established community, and either embraces it or exiles oneself
from it. To embrace that community means to entrust oneself to others in the community and
to accept such entrusting from others. That mutual respect and responsibility sustains the
community over time. This notion of justice changes the context of concern from individuals
to the human community, strengthening the claim of concepts such as contributive justice.
(next)
61
for instance, see Micah 6:8.

Joseph L. Allen, Love and Conflict: A Covenantal Model of Christian Ethics (University Press of America,
1995), p. 25
62
Moral GPS
121
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
Social Contract Theory

(Act in accordance with norms of the ideal society)
The Theory
Crash Risks
Alternate Routes
The Theory
Living in the world with others requires that each person accept limits to personal freedom in
order to live in society. Those limits would include respect for the rights of others and duties
to support the common good.
Exactly what rights and duties would be included? Social Contract Theory holds a
hypothetical original "town meeting" to establish those rights and duties. In this "town
meeting," fully rational and autonomous persons deliberate what limits are necessary and
reasonable to enable them to live together in harmony. One product of such hypothetical
deliberation is concern for Natural Rights and the moral equality of all persons.
Critics of Social Contract theory point to psychological egoism, and claim that each
participant in such a hypothetical contract negotiation would be seeking personal advantage,
and so would manipulate the contract.
John Rawls (1971) responded to this problem with his notion of a veil of ignorance hiding
from each participant the actual condition he/she would have in that society. One would not
know whether one would be rich or poor, male or female, educated or ignorant.
What would a rational person, even an unethical egoist, do in such a situation? He would
have to imagine himself in every role within that societyin other words, carefully consider
where all others are coming from. Then it would be only logical for him to arrange the
conditions of the social contract so that even if he were among the least well off in that
society, he would still have what he needed to live a decent human life. In effect, Rawls' "veil
of ignorance" leads even the unethical egoist to seek "eye in the sky" fairness.
So, for instance, even an unethical egoist would not permit slavery in the society, for he could
easily end up in that condition. So a Rawlsian social contract would tend to eliminate any
social privileges that oppress others.
Rawls theory links to egalitarian theories of justice. All benefits and burdens in this ideal
society would be distributed equally. Any differences (say, providing more benefits to some in
that society) can be justified only if they are to the advantage of the least well off. (So, for
instance, higher rewards for medical professionals would be justified provided they resulted in
better health care for all, especially the poorest.)
Crash Risks
Social Contract Theory imagines a standpoint that transcends history and yet sets down rules
for history. It hypothesizes a dialog among rational persons before such persons exist. It is
more abstract and inaccessible than Platos famous World of Ideas. While it may be
Moral GPS
122
historically significant as a theoretical foundation for democracy once divine-right monarchy
had become distasteful, it is impractical as a foundation for current dialog.
Rawls theory makes a strong case for a society as nearly egalitarian as possible. However,
his principle of difference would demand that social inequalities be permitted only if they
benefited the least well off. Inequalities that produced the greatest good for the greatest
number would be prohibited if they failed to improve things for the least well off. In this case,
doing right by the theory can cause harm, or at least a diminished good.
Alternate Routes.
Social Contract Theory is based upon mutual respect for moral autonomy of persons. There
is a shorter and more practical route to the same goal: the ethic of care or the Golden Rule.
Rawls theory of distribution of social goods may be balanced by a utilitarian concern for the
greatest good for the greatest number. Rawls theory in turn can join with Natural Rights
theory to protect the lesser number.
(next)
Moral GPS
123
Kantian Duty Ethic

(Be sure that the rule allowing ones action can be universal)
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
The Theory
Crash Risks
Alternate Routes
The Theory (check also Main Routes)
Immanuel Kant sought to establish a system of morally certain, universal rules based on
reason alone.
His ethic required two essential things: good will and reason. Good will means respect for
and accountability to law (not to civil law but to universal moral rules). Good will acts ONLY
out of such a sense of duty, and never out of inclination (personal preference) or
consideration of results. Reason demands logic and intellectual honesty, and depends
neither on religious faith nor on experiential confirmation. (Therefore Kant rejected
consequences as relevant to ethics.)
The Kantian rejection of results-based thinking is related to a weakness in consequentialism,
namely the problem of identifying the "good" especially for others. Consequentialist thinking
can thus be reduced to mere prudence, inadequate as an ethical theory.
Central to Kants ethics is the Categorical Imperative. This is less a rule than a method of
establishing rules. When I consider taking an action, first I must ask myself, What rule would
authorize me to take this action? Second, once I have identified this rule, I must ask myself,
Can this rule become universal, so that all persons would be justified in following it? (This is
the what if everybody did it question.) If the rule cannot be made universal without logical
contradiction or logical incoherence, then the action considered is wrong, absolutely.
For instance, if telling a lie would help me out of a difficult situation, my first question would
result in the rule, I may tell a lie to get out of a difficult situation. The second question would
result in the rule, Everyone may always tell lies to get out of difficult situations. But applying
that rule would mean that no one would ever believe anything said by a person in a difficult
situation, so there would be no point in telling the lie. My rule is therefore self-contradictory,
and lying is wrong, always and absolutely.
However, some less desirable rules can past the test of the Categorical Imperative. Never
help another person in need is such a rule. Kant supplements the Categorical Imperative
with another central criterion, reversibility. Would I like to be the person in need to whom this
rule would apply? If not, the rule is not moral. This criterion has been understood as a version
of the Golden Rule. It serves as a corrective to the possibility of valid but wrong rules such
as never help another person in need.
Also central to Kant's theory is the Practical Imperative. This principle affirms that no human
being should be thought of or used merely as a means for someone elses purposes, but that
each human being is also an end in himself or herself. This is approximately equivalent to a
natural rights theory.
Moral GPS
Crash Risks
124
Kants notion of good will excludes personal preferences and consideration of results from
moral consideration. The only morally valid motivation is a sheer sense of duty, so much so
that if I am emotionally inclined to refrain from murdering my companions, my nonviolence
has no moral worth. However, if my sociopathic companion whose inclination is indeed
toward murder refrains from killing me, his nonviolence does have moral worth because he
has suppressed his murderous inclination out of a sense of duty . . . this time. This teaching
runs counter to what most people consider common sense.
Kants exclusion of results can lead to a person causing or permitting evil by doing the right
thing. Never lie, says the duty, even if I am confronted by a murderer asking the
whereabouts of a friend that I know is hiding in my home.
The theory claims that rules are absolute and exceptionless when resulting from application
of the Categorical Imperative. All such rules are absolute, even when in practice they might
contradict each other. Kant provides no way of resolving conflicts between duties, though
others have offered techniques to do so. Moreover, projecting my own rule as universal
seriously risks turning me into a moral bigot.
Alternate Routes
Virtue ethics can provide an alternative for validating moral inclinations. So if I am inclined to
be kind to persons in need out of a consciously cultivated virtue of benevolence, that does
have moral worth and indicates a moral goodness of character.
All deontological theories (seeking to do right) must be balanced by consequentialist theory,
particularly utilitarian theory (seeking to do good).
The rigidity of Kantian absolutism can be corrected by distinguishing the should or ideal
level of consideration from the "ought level of actual obligation. That distinction transforms
Kants rules into prima facie duties that have the moral right of way, but no more.
The risk of the moral bigotry is reduced by replacing Kants monological approach with an
intersubjective mode of identifying norms, as in Discourse Ethics, which itself is consciously
developed from the Kantian quest for universal moral norms.
Return to Main Routes/Kantian Duty Ethic
(next)
Moral GPS
125
Discourse Ethics
(Act according to norms for rational dialog)
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
The Theory
Crash Risks
Alternate Routes
The Theory
Jrgen Habermas identified a universal basis for ethical norms in the capacity of all human
beings to use language, particularly language oriented toward bringing about cooperative
action ("communicative rationality).
These norms include the nature of a claim, what can count as good reasons to support a
claim, and the shared expectation that each person will honor those norms.(Sometimes that's
expressed in shared indignation at a violation of those norms.)
Universal implies actual (or potential) approval of all affected by a decisionapproval
through actual discourse.This ensures that in moral thinking a person is aware of OTHERS
(as others) and holds himself accountable to others.
In practice, that means moral rules become rules for participationin discourse aimed at
reaching mutual understanding. Note that Habermas does not claim to have invented these
rules. He simply seeks to describe what is there. He argues that this set of rules is universal,
known by all as practical assumptions underlying their use of language.
Those rules look like directions for running a meeting well.
- speakers must be consistent and honest
- speakers must give good reasons supporting any claim they make
- anyone who disagrees with anothers statement must provide a reason for doing so
- everyone competent to speak on a subject must be allowed to do so
- everyone is allowed to make any claim or question any claim
- no one may be prevented from participation
Let every person have his or her say! Listen carefully!
On the Moral Highway, these basic rules of communicative rationality amount to respect for
the moral autonomy of others, and can provide a rational foundation for norms of justice and
of human rights.
Notice that it is Discourse Ethics that provides the basic rules of the road for the Moral
Highway as it is conceived in the Moral GPS.
Crash Risks
This theory requires participatory decision-making. That may not be practical in every
situation, and some claim that any attempt to generate consensus among stakeholders with
significant cultural differences is doomed to failure. It presents an ideal, but perhaps only that.
Moral GPS
Alternate Routes
126
Supporters of Discourse Ethics contend that the requirement of participatory decisionmaking is a strength rather than a weakness of the theory, and that an important attempt to
generate consensus among diverse stakeholders has in fact succeeded in practice: The
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Discourse Ethics is principally a rule theory, i.e. a theory guiding persons in the formulation
of policies to govern multiple situations rather than in deciding in a specific situation. It
generates a should. As with any rule theory, Discourse Ethics must be applied, considering
road conditions, in order to generate an ought.
(next)
Moral GPS
127
Religion: Divine Command theory

(Act according to revealed Divine Laws)
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
The Theory
Road Hazards
Alternate Routes
The Theory
Right and Wrong are determined by commands (rules) laid down by a divine authority. In the
Western world, the Ten Commandments are the most widely invoked set of such rules. Such
rules are found in a Scripture such as the Bible or the Qur'an.
Since these rules are divinely revealed, they are absolute and not subject to change or
adaptation. One must obey these rules regardless of consequences. Moreover, they are
beyond question. In some religious traditions, interpretation of these rules is the prerogative
of a divinely appointed moral authority. Moral choice is simple: God said it; I believe it; that
settles it (bumper-sticker ethics on the Moral Highway).
Crash Risks
Since the Moral Highway is traveled by very diverse people, the Divine Command theory is
not useful alone as a good reason that will be convincing to persons who are not part of
the same religious life-world. While a persons moral conviction may be rooted in the Divine
Command theory, to appeal to others one must support that conviction with good reasons
based in theories that are accessible to diverse people, i.e. rational theories.
Since the Divine Command theory claims absolute and unquestionable authority, it easily
becomes ideological and so violates the essential rules of the road that require mutual
respect for moral autonomy. This tendency of the Divine Command theory is the very model
of the Moral Bigot type of Road Menace.
It is easy to mistake one's understanding of a Divine Command for the Command itself,
particularly since the Command is ordinarily in general terms ("should" level), and application
to particular road conditions ("ought" level) requires interpretation. Such a mistake can turn a
person into a serious Road Menace.
Persons relying absolutely on the Divine Command theory but coming from different religious
traditions have no rational recourse to overcome disagreements, but are likely to resort to
violence. By any ethical measure, such violence is an evil for it directly attacks the moral
autonomy of human persons. This is not only a crash risk; it is a collision threat.
A hazard that the Divine Command Theory has in common with other deontological theories
is ignoring consequences. If applying a rule in a situation would cause serious harm to
persons, a responsible decision-maker must evaluate whether the rule ought indeed to be
applied. (Remember Jean and John on abortion.) The person intending to do what is right
may in effect do evil. (One pointed expression for this kind of crash is "Doing the devil's work
in God's name.")
Moral GPS
Alternate Routes
128
While one may base ones personal convictions on the Divine Command theory, on the Moral
Highway one must support that conviction by any theory that appeals to critical reason: good
reasons accessible and acceptable to persons from diverse life-worlds.
This requirement does not call on the religious person to "water down" her beliefs to some
kind of "least common denominator." The world's religious traditions are not alien to our being
in the world with others. The religious person needs to address the shared depths of the
human condition out of the depths of her own faith.63 If she cannot do so, there may be a
religious crash in the works, her alienation from her own inner humanity.64
A person unable to escape from moral bigotry may not be capable of safe travel on the Moral
Highway. She may be a rookie driver. Refer to ways of helping rookie drivers get up to
speedin this context, to be able to communicate with people who have different
perspectives.
In order to avoid the risk of doing evil while intending to do right, all deontological approaches
must be balanced by results-oriented considerations.
(next)
See, for instance, Romans 1:20: Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature,
invisible though they are, have been understood ans seen through the things he has made. (NRSV)
64
In the Christian tradition, the name for this kind of religious crash is Manicheism.
63
Moral GPS
129
Natural Law theory

(Act according to the design of human nature)
The Theory
Crash Risks
Alternate Routes
The Theory
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
The best source for the Natural Law theory is the thirteenth-century thinker Thomas Aquinas.
Aquinas holds that the Natural Law is established by Gods providence creating beings that
are actively able to pursue their own fulfillment. Ethical reason then evaluates whether an
action is consistent with what is intrinsically good for a being, or inconsistent with that good.65
The fundamental precept of this law is Do good; avoid evil. But no one can simply pursue
good in general. One seeks some particular good. Aquinas holds that we know immediately
and intuitively (by "inclination") what is good for us as human beings, such as life,
procreation, knowledge, society, and reasonable conduct. Note that these goods
correspond to levels within the hierarchical nature of a human being: living, animal, rational,
social, moral.66 So some goods are "higher" than other goods.
Therefore, like results-based theories, the Natural Law theory focuses on doing good as the
primary ethical norm. However, it is included among deontological theories because the
good is not determined by results. Good is based upon human persons direct and intuitive
knowledge of their own natural inclinations (their built-in tendency to seek what fulfills or
satisfies their nature).
An action can be identified as evil if it goes contrary to such natural inclinations, or if it would
pursue fulfillment of a lower inclination (e.g., enjoyment of wine) at the expense of a higher
one (rational and moral responsibility while driving). Such Natural Law thinking leads some to
condemn contraception as evil, for in their view it goes contrary to the intrinsic good for which
sexual intercourse is designed, procreation. (Such people assume that sex is only an
instrumental good.) Any pursuit of an instrumental good (sex or money) as if it were an
intrinsic good is a moral aberration ("lust" or "greed").
Unlike Kant, the Natural Law theory recognizes that road conditions will sometimes pose
conflicts among goods at stake. Making a good decision will therefore require careful
evaluation of alternatives. However, unlike results-based theories, this theory would never
allow the pursuit of a good to justify an evil means, because the good and the evil are defined
intrinsically (built-in) rather than in terms of anticipated results.
Some goods are absolute norms. Killing the innocent is always wrong, violating a
fundamental human good. Aquinas also condemned lying, adultery, sodomy, and blasphemy
as always wrong according to the natural law. (These are only examples, not an exhaustive
list of absolutely forbidden actions.)
Crash Risks
The Natural Law theory depends historically on belief in God, like the Divine Command
theory. That limits its usefulness in a multicultural arena, and has historically led thinkers to
discard it.
65
The moral theory is discussed here. In the philosophy of law, the "natural law theory" is opposed to the
"positivist" legal theory.
66 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-IIae q. 94 a. 2.
Moral GPS
130
If we know the goods only through direct intuition of our own natures, how are conflicting
notions of such goods to be resolved? The Natural Law theory provides no way of resolving
such conflicts.
The most serious flaw in the Natural Law theory is that one groups sense of the good is
imposed as the standard for all persons and all times (the standard person problem). That
one group was, for Aquinas, 13th-century affluent French and Italian males whose notion of
the world was static and who lacked psychological sophistication. Recent versions of the
natural law theory have taken static natural structures as normative rules, rather than
focusing on human inclination as did Aquinas.67 Hence this theory is the paradigm for
unconscious moral bigotry, as someone considers a particular natural law norm to be "good,
plain common sense."68 Unfortunately, that "sense" is "common" only within a restricted
group. In that, it shares with utilitarianism the risk of having to define good for others. But
the more serious temptation of the moral bigot is to judge that, since this view is so logical,
anyone with a different view is at best illogical, at worst living in bad faith or even committed
to evil. This temptation leads quickly to the coercive behavior of the Road Menace, even to
violence.
Alternate Routes
Discourse ethics can address the weaknesses of the Natural Law theory by identifying
goods only through dialog of stakeholders toward consensus, so that no one imposes ones
view on others.
The Ethic of Care with its focus on particular individual persons in their web of relationships
can also avoid the risk of unconscious moral bigotry.
(next)
Consider, for instance, the reasoning in Pope Paul VIs 1969 Humana Vitae, basing a prohibition of birth
control on the biological orientation of sex to procreation, excluding psychological and interpersonal dimensions
of sex as morally relevant.
68 A review of a prominent Natural Law textbook is an excellent example of moral bigotry: Right and Reason is
a thoroughly competent book in the philosophy of Ethics, which gives the science of morality from the
Aristotelian-Thomistic, common-sense school of thought--which is none other than the Perennial Philosophy of
the Ages, the philosophy outside of which one's positions quickly become absurd and all reasoning ends up in
dead-ends. http://www.marianland.com/tan_new_2000_008.html (accessed 07 19 2011). Unfortunately, such
bigotry excludes serious consideration of other perspectives, and thereby it alienates itself from communicative
action: intercultural dialog which might otherwise benefit from its participation as an equal, noninfallible, partner.
67
Moral GPS
131
Virtue Ethics
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
The Theory
Crash Risks
Alternate Routes
The Theory
Unlike theories that serve as "good reasons" offered to reasonable persons in moral dialog,
virtue ethics addresses one's disposition as a driver on the Moral Highway. The Moral GPS
drew from this theory in setting personal goals and as a way to identify shared values as you
try to work together with others.
Virtues are moral habits that, as part of one's moral character, lead a person to act
consistently in ways that seek moral good and avoid moral evil. Examples of virtues:
practical wisdom, justice or fairness, courage, and moderation.
Virtue Ethics affirms that such habits can be developed by practice and by imitating skilled
models, just like athletic or artistic skills. Aristotle taught that such practice develops moral
character and leads to the admirable happiness of living a genuinely good life. This good life
is essentially social, and so a principal goal for a good society is to enable all citizens to attain
virtue. Education should present models of virtue and encourage imitating them.
Crucial to good decision-making is the virtue of practical wisdom or good judgment. The gap
between what can be spelled out in rules (should) and actual road conditions is often very
wide. Decision-makers must be able to judge wisely, justly, courageously, impartially,
honestly, kindlyand appropriately. Appropriateness requires the application of rules and
values in a way that fits the road conditions. The best way to ensure that decisions are right
and good, according to Virtue Ethics, is to have virtuous decision-makers.
Further, virtuous decision-makers are ready to make good and fair decisions almost
intuitively, without the need for lengthy and cumbersome deliberation. Decision-makers
imbued with the virtue of moderation instinctively seek the "golden mean" and avoid extremes
that could cause undue harm to peope affected by the decision.
Confucian Ethic
Older than Aristotle's Virtue Ethic is the ethic of Master Kung, a.k.a Confucius. This ethic
focuses on interpersonal relationships. While lists of Confucian virtues vary, four stand out:
- ren (jen): benevolence / humaneness toward all others.
- li: propriety/rituali.e. conduct appropriate to ones relationships with others, somewhat
like good manners or courtesy, but governed by social hierarchy and expressive of
universal harmony..
- hsin (hsiao): (mind/heart) family love; empathy.
- de (te): virtue or charisma: ability to lead by example and not by force.
Cultivating these virtues brings harmony to the family, through the family to the village, and
through the village to the state. Harmony is cooperation, mutual respect (li), and the absence
of discordant conflict. Contrary views are brought together by the attractive appeal of superior
virtue (de).
Moral GPS
Crash Risks
132
In most theories, the focus of thinking is on action regarding issues that are in a public arena:
a situation, rules, other persons. Virtue ethics by contrast turns the focus inward toward
motivations and attitudes. Two crash risks arise if a person forgets that virtue is essentially
social. First, the person focusing on individual intentions may fail to take road conditions into
account, especially the perspectives of others. Second, one's motivation can be perverted to
enhancing his self-image, as if he is constantly looking in a vanity mirror rather than keeping
his eyes on the road. Self-deception happens easily, and such a person may slip into a ditch.
Identifying what constitutes a virtue can become a controversial issue in a multicultural world.
Imitating one cultures heroes risks unconscious moral bigotry, especially when another
cultures heroes present conflicting qualities. Note that Virtue Ethics is historically tied with
the Natural Law Theory, which has a similar occupational hazard.
Confucian virtues are conceived in relation to the particular family and social hierarchy of
ancient Chinese society. Translating those virtues in a multicultural context is a challenge not
yet overcome.
Alternate Routes
Another theory that concerns itself with dispositions but that turns ones attention outward is
the Ethic of Care, where the focus is not so much on ones own intention but on the concerns
and needs of others. If Virtue Ethics is linked with the Ethic of Care, it can prompt people to
work together toward bringing others to that admirable happiness of a genuinely good life.
A check on Virtue Ethics is utilitarianism, which would insist that the good intended by the
decision-maker is actually resulting (or likely to result) from the decision.
A further check is Discourse Ethics, which requires that all people affected by a decision are
heard in the decision process. That would lessen the risk of moral bigotry that Virtue Ethics
entails.
Return to Your Goals and Ideals
(next)
Moral GPS
133

(Often alternate routes arent either-or; theyre both-and.)
START
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
Operators Manual
Back to GPS
Ordinary logic demands that when two theories are contradictory, one must eliminate the
other (or both must be eliminated). That is based on the foundational principle of
"noncontradiction," that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time.
Moral thinking often must employ a different logic. For that reason, learning to drive on the
Moral Highway requires some thinking about "how routes work" on that Highway.
Most often in an ethical dilemma, evaluation of alternatives will not fit the neat pattern of
ordinary yes/no or either/or logic.
Another kind of logic may come into play, a both-and logic called the logic of the balance
of opposites. This logic is most often at work in the deeper dimensions of human existence
(hence it was identified as a logic by thinkers who wrote about spirituality and mysticism).
See the Operators Manual on how routes work.
Take a deep philosophic issue: are human beings free (i.e. as moral agents) or is our
behavior determined by outside influences? (This is the issue of determinism.) In ordinary
logic, asserting freedom means denying that our behavior may be determined by outside
influences. Asserting outside influence means denying freedom (e.g. behaviorism). Neither
one-sided position makes sense of the lived reality.
The logic of the balance of opposites holds that, given two such opposites,
a. both may be false;
b. or both must be true, because
c. either one without the other is false (i.e., it fails to make sense of lived reality).
So yes, human beings are free, and yes, our behavior is determined by outside influences.
Some might want to discover exactly where the line is to be drawn between freedom and
determinism, but on the Moral Highway, that is a side road. It doesnt help you along your
way.
Ethical evaluation must therefore take opposing theories into account, for they need each
other in order to avoid the wrong or harm that a one-sided approach would cause.
For that reason, the Tourist Info Center is presented as a form of architecture in which no
theory type can stand without leaning on the other (an "A-frame" structure).
(next)
Moral GPS
134
Dilemmas and Methods of Resolving Dilemmas

(Ready-made Detours: Logical Strategies)
START
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
Recognizing a Dilemma
It isnt always easy to tell the difference between a moral dilemma and a challenge to moral
integrity. One effective test is to check the values at stake in the alternatives you face
against a short list of dilemma types. Rushworth M. Kidder69 describes a moral dilemma as a
choice of right versus right, and a moral temptation as a choice of right versus wrong.70 He
proposed that there are only four kinds of genuine dilemmas:
Truth versus Loyalty
Individual versus Community
Short-term versus long-term
Justice versus mercy
These dilemma paradigms reflect basic human values. If a conflict of values doesnt fit within
one of these paradigms, then most likely it is not a dilemma but a choice of right versus
wrong, a challenge to moral integrity.
Truth versus Loyalty: Truth requires honest, accurate, complete expression of what one
knows. Loyalty requires care for another person or for ones group. Lets say my friend has
applied for a job. She has confided a secret about herself to mea secret that could lessen
her chances for getting the job. Her prospective employer contacts me as a reference for her.
I have a truth versus loyalty dilemma.
Individual versus Community: It is morally right to seek my own good (life, freedom, health,
happiness). At the same time every person belongs to and is somehow dependent upon a
larger groupa family, institution, civil society, world. Likewise, it is morally right to seek the
good of my immediate group (family, company, nation), while that group belongs to and is
dependent upon larger groups (community, nation, world). As a parent, for instance, should I
sacrifice my goals (continuing my education) in order to take a second job so my young
family can be more secure financially?
Short-term versus long-term: Immediate needs must be met. At the same time I may attain
greater good by sacrificing immediate satisfaction to pursue that greater good. As a parent,
would it be better for my family to live frugally now while I continue my education because
that will ensure a much higher income for them a few years down the road?
Justice versus mercy: Do we act impartially, strictly according to rules? Or do we give priority
to individual persons circumstances or needs? What does it really mean to be fair? A student
faced a family crisis near the end of my course and I allowed her to take an Incomplete for
the course. The University has a strict time limit within which the course must be completed
or the grade turns into an F. The student asks for even more time. Do I follow University
policy or do I work around it to accommodate the student?
69
Rushworth M. Kidder, How Good People Make Tough Choices. (Simon and Schuster, 1995). See especially
pp. 17-23 and chapters 5 and 6. See also http://www.globalethics.org (accessed June 2, 2011).
70 The Moral GPS refers to right vs wrong as a challenge to moral integrity.
Moral GPS
135
There are only these four paradigms, according to Kidder. Hence they provide a reliable
checklist for determining whether the alternatives you face are really a dilemma or rather a
challenge to your moral integrity.
Another kind of dilemma is posed by a clash of ethical assumptions. This is a different
kind of dilemma because the conflict is not posed within an individual's ethical framework, but
between different ethical frameworks. Hence this kind of dilemma will likely be a social
dilemma (a congested area). So, for instance, a person working from consequentialist
assumptions will consider only results as "good reasons" capable of justifying an ethical
decision. However, a person facing the same decision with nonconsequentialist assumptions
will exclude results as relevant for the moral justification of a decision. Resolve this kind of
dilemma using the guidelines for staying together.
The Moral GPS shows you how to steer carefully through a dilemma by sorting out the values
at stake in the dilemma, evaluating the theories supporting alternatives in the dilemma, and
looking for another way, a trilemma. Here are some further strategies for resolving a
dilemma.
Other Strategies for Resolving Dilemmas

A Covenant-based Method
Deontological Methods
The Principle of Subsidiarity
A Covenant-based Method71
The Moral Highway that we all share can be understood as a kind of covenant community,
that is:
- an inclusive community in which we find ourselves (rather than inventing or deliberately
joining);
- an ongoing relationship of interdependence that requires people to care for each other;
- a need to entrust oneself to others and to accept others trust, and an obligation to be
faithful to that trust.
Within that inclusive covenant community, specialized relationships form particular
communities, some of them life communities like families and others organized for specific
purposes, like professions or businesses. Your commitment to a particular community can be
understood as a special commitment or covenant relation.
You are likely to belong to several special communities and so to be committed to several
kinds of covenant relationships: family, profession, church, civil community, union,
corporation, club, or interest group. It can happen that the demands of one special
commitment conflict with those of another, e.g. a physicians profession demanding long
hours that take her away from her family. Such conflicts look a lot like dilemmas.
How can you resolve such conflicts?
71
Based on Joseph L. Allen, Love & Conflict: A Covenantal Model of Christian Ethics (University Press of
America, 1995), esp. chapter 5.
Moral GPS
136
Consider whether the demand of the special commitment conflicts with the inclusive
community that constitutes the Moral Highway. So, for instance, membership in the KKK
might call upon you to use intimidation to prevent minority people from voting. Since this kind
of action in effect tries to force people off the road, it violates the basic rules of the road
governing travel on the Moral Highway. This kind of conflict is not a dilemma; its a challenge
to moral integrity. Its not a legitimate demand; its simply wrong.
If your conflicting obligations are legitimate, what do you do?
First, recognize that each obligation indeed has a prima facie moral claim, a should.
Then consider the purpose of the covenant that gives rise to the obligation. If you are a
physician and the purpose of your profession is healing, ask if this particular obligation (e.g.
long hours) actually support the purpose of the covenant. In a major community health crisis,
it may. Accept the long hours. In routine times when others can carry part of your load, give
more time to your family.
You might want to include the principle of subsidiarity in your thinking about purpose. A
physicians overload may be due to centralizing all responsibility for a communitys health
care in a few physicians. Subsidiarity suggests that you should place responsibility for
meeting needs at the lowest level that is capable of carrying it out. Perhaps nurse
practitioners, nurses, even volunteers can effectively share the burden.
Finally, consider the kind of community giving rise to the obligation and how its members
have become obligated to one another.
Are you irreplaceable as a member of the medical community? Probably not. Are you
irreplaceable as a member of your family? Lets hope so! That suggests obligations to
your family should have priority.
How serious would be the impact on other members of the special community if you
decline the particular obligation? In a major community health crisis, it would be very
serious. In routine times, it might cause some minor inconvenience.
Would it do more harm than good if you carry out the obligation? (This consideration
lands you in utilitarian thinking)
Which commitment was undertaken first?
Would carrying out the obligation have serious negative effects on you?
Then, of course, you have to decide. Good luck.
Deontological Methods.
One crash risk of deontological theories is the difficulty of resolving conflicts between two
equally obligatory principles. Here are two strategies for resolving dilemmas within a
deontological framework.
Double Effect principle72
A classic example is the case of a pregnant woman with uterine cancer. On the one hand,
medical professionals are obliged to intervene in order to save the mothers life. On the other
hand, removing the diseased uterus will abort the fetus, crossing a serious moral boundary
within a Natural Law framework. In this kind of case, though, the conflict can be resolved by
72 based
on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/ (accessed

07 19 2011).
Moral GPS
137
73
the principle of double effect. According to The New Catholic Encyclopedia , Conditions for
the legitimate application of double effect are four:
1. The act itself (here, removing the diseased uterus) must be morally good or at least
indifferent.
2. The agent may not directly will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the
good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to
be indirectly voluntary. (Here, the uterus contains a nonviable fetus whose destruction
is unavoidable, even though it is not what the intervention seeks to do.)
3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of
causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words
the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect.
Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never
allowed. (Here, the removal of the diseased uterus also, in the same act, aborts the
fetus. Were this a case of, e.g., ectopic pregnancy, where the pregnancy itself
threatens the mothers life, the intervention would be primarily intended to remove the
fetus, so that abortion would be the means to the end of saving the mothers life. The
principle of double effect would not apply.
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the
bad effect.
The term Indirect can reveal an application of the double-effect principle. The classic
example above would be called an indirect abortion.
Lesser Evil Principle

Sometimes there is no good alternative. A crazed man mistakes you for a threat and
attacks you with a knife. There's nowhere to run. It's your life or his. Whatever you do, unless
you miraculously find a detour, a precious value will be lost: life. This is the worst kind of
dilemma. You are going to crash. You can't avoid it. Now you try to minimize the damage.
No one will blame you if you have to kill the crazed man (they'll call it "self-defense"), but
you've still been involved in a crash, and you'll be morally bruised by it. (That all assumes that
you didn't deliberately seek out that crazed man: if you did, you've driven right through a very
serious moral boundary, and you will be blamed for it.)
In some situations there are no good or right alternatives available. An evil action may then
be justified in order to prevent a greater evil. Conditions for legitimate application of the lesser
evil principle are:
1. No good or right alternatives are available
2. One must act (i.e. one cannot escape the situation)
3. The evil avoided or prevented is greater than the evil chosen.
4. One has not deliberately placed oneself in the situation.
The lesser evil principle can justify actions that otherwise would violate basic ethical norms
(e.g. do not kill). However, one is not obliged to do even the lesser evil; one may legitimately
choose to suffer the greater evil.74
73
see The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2002.

Summa Theologiae, Suppl. Q 47 a. 2 response.
74Aquinas,
Moral GPS
138
Note that even though a lesser evil may be ethically justified, it is still evil. A person involved
in such a situation (e.g. a combat soldier) will inevitably feel tainted or guilty, and will need
support and likely counseling75.
Caution: lesser evil cannot be translated into greater good. Some people have used the
phrase for the greater good to justify even murder for the sake of some program or
ideology. That is not a legitimate ethical move. It amounts to the claim that the positive end
justifies the negative means, which violates the conditions for lesser evil.
Principle of Subsidiarity76
The Principle of Subsidiarity can help you steer through a dilemma by clarifying whose
dilemma it is. The decision between conflicting alternatives may belong to someone who is
closer than you are to the issue to be decided.
Ethically adequate decision procedures should allow freedom for the people closest to the
actual decision to make the evaluation of what is possible and what is appropriate. Such
participatory decision structures reflect the Principle of Subsidiarity. As a political principle,
Subsidiarity calls for decisions to be made by the smallest, most local authority that is
competent to carry out the decision, rather than by a central government.
The principle was articulated as a defense of individual freedom and dignity in response to
the rise of totalitarian governments77 in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It has been
incorporated into the organization of the European Union. The basic principle is evident in the
10th amendment to the United States Constitution (states rights).
The 1986 Challenger Disaster78 is a classic ethical case showing the negative consequences
of disregarding the Principle of Subsidiarity. Engineers closest to the actual hardware of the
space shuttle recommended against launching because the low temperatures that day
weakened the booster rocket seals. A management decision chose not to follow that
recommendation, and that decision led to a catastrophe.
Though it does not directly address values at stake, this principle can help to resolve a
dilemma because persons closest to the issue of the decision are likely to have the clearest
and most practical grasp of values involved and their relative importance. In effect, the
Principle of Subsidiarity demands that the person who can best see the road is in the drivers
seat.
(next)
75
Hence there is a moral dimension to the Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome.

Based on Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity (accessed June 2, 2011)
77 by Popes Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum, 1891, and Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931.
78 See "Roger Boisjoly-The Challenger Disaster" Online Ethics Center for Engineering 5/19/2006 National
Academy of Engineering Accessed: Monday, December 14, 2009
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/RB-intro.aspx (accessed March 23, 2013)
76
Moral GPS
139

Applying Theories of Moral Development.
START
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
1. Rookie Drivers and the Risk of Moral Miscommunication.

2. Background on the Theories
3. Moral Development Theory: Lawrence Kohlberg.
4. Critique: Gilligan
5. Further Insights
a. Habermas Reconstruction of Kohlberg
b. Kegan and Orders of Consciousness
c. Beck and the Spiral Dynamic
d. Hoffmann, Gibbs: thought AND feeling and something deeper.
6. Applying Theories of Moral Development
Moral GPS
140
START
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
Return to GPS
1. Rookie Drivers and the Risk of Moral Miscommunication.

The Moral GPS is designed to guide you toward mutual understanding through reasonable
discussion. But not everyone is always reasonable, and moral questions tend to bring out
peoples most unreasonable traitsincluding your own.
Often other people will disagree with you. That is no surprise.
Be alert to a crucial difference. One person may understand your position and then give you
her reasons for taking a different stance. Then you can continue, working through the values
at stake and the theories that support those values (See Try to Stay Together). Perhaps
youll reach consensus. At least youll reach a respectful mutual understanding.
But another person may not understand your position at all. Lets call him Joe Block. All
your efforts to give good reasons may leave Joe unconvinced. He gives you a blank stare
and just says no. Or he just keeps repeating his arguments, obviously not taking seriously
any other perspective. Then you cannot continue. Thats why such a person is called a traffic
obstruction in the Moral GPS. Youve got a failure of communication, and communication is
the only way to travel safely on the Moral Highway.
Be careful at this point. You may think Joe Block is being obstructive, but do others?
Remember, your task on the Moral Highway is to help people stay together. Look around
you. If no one else finds Joe frustrating, maybe you should remember that essential bit of
wisdom: I could be wrong. (You always need to keep that in mind anyway.)
Dont try to confront a person like Joe. It wont help. Hes likely to stiffen up and get more rigid
in his stance. Besides, you risk becoming a Road Menace. Instead, you have to help him to
get up to speed, to find his way back into the flow of travel on the Moral Highway.
How?
Youve tried reasoning about values and theories (moral philosophy), and it hasnt worked.
Joe Block isnt able to relate to that kind of thinking.
What you need is an understanding of moral psychology. Joe is probably a rookie driver, a
person who has not yet developed the ability to think about moral issues in a way that
adequately allows for differences of perspective. Your task is to foster Joes moral
development. The Moral GPS now provides you with a summary of major theories of moral
development and then points out how those theories can help guide your efforts to stay
together on the Moral Highway.
Another word of caution: dont be condescending. Psychological theories talk in terms of
stages of growth or maturation. But if you tell Joe Block hes immature, hes likely to resent
it, dont you think? Hell think youre an elitist, looking down your long pointy nose and
belittling him as if hes deficient. Instead, you might try presenting the psychological theories
as an opportunity for self-enhancement. Then, like a guru, you can offer a path to greater
Moral GPS
141
79
enlightenmenta completely optional invitation. But then Joe will think he can take it or
leave it, and youll have gotten nowhere with this traffic obstruction.
You face a tactical dilemma. If you talk about moral maturity, you risk labeling a traffic
obstruction as deficient. Dont talk down. Unfortunately, experts estimate that up to 80% of
the people in developed countries havent reached the level of moral maturity required for
constructive communication with culturally diverse people80. (Thats developed countries!) But
if you simply offer a path that others can take or leave, how many are generous enough to
take that path? Dont kid yourself.
Profound challenges confront us in the twenty-first century world. Developing an adequate
moral point of view is not optional. Our era calls us, like it or not, to an obligatory quest. If a
persons moral point of view isnt yet adequate, that is not a deficiency. It is simply part of the
challenge of our quest. Just like the heroes of the old knightly tales, the hero is no less strong
or brave because he has to grow through his quest. Unlikely as it seems, a fourteenthcentury tale may be our best model for understanding our challenge. 81 Sir Gawain had a
choice whether or not to undertake his perilous quest for the Green Knight, but to turn away
would have been cowardly and irresponsible. Sir Gawain was strong and brave, yet the
challenge he faced was beyond his capacity. He had to undergo trials that transformed his
self-understanding. Sir Gawain succeeded in his quest, but not so he could brag about it. He
had become painfully aware of his own limitations. The source of his affirmation was other
peoplehis fellow knights of the Round Table--who accepted him with his limitations.
Our perilous quest is a shared quest. Theories of moral development offer a series of maps
for the quest, programmed here into the Moral GPS. If you know them, you can help your
fellow-knights cross over obstacles within and without and so advance the quest of all.
2. Background on the Theories
Theories of moral development arose from the psychology of education. Once, aeons ago,
people thought that childrens minds worked just like adult minds, but simply lacked
information. Around the turn of the twentieth century, psychologists like Jean Piaget and Lev
S. Vygotsky realized that young peoples minds developed in their way of thinking and not
only in what they thought. Children developed in the ways they constructed their sense of the
world.
Two patterns of development complemented each other. Children started with an infantile
self-focused sense of the world. Then they began to recognize others as independent people
who share the world. Eventually they developed a sense of the world as if seen by a
detached observer. At the same time, their understanding grew from relating only concrete,
particular objects into constructing abstract and universal patterns. Development followed
predictable steps or stages, the more mature stage building on the earlier stages.
79
Theories of moral development bear a striking resemblance to Christian, Zen Buddhist and Sufi patterns of
spiritual ascent, for instance the medieval Christian three ways of purgation (cleansing the self), illumination
(making sense of ones world), and unity (losing self in connection with all others in the Ultimate). One
expression of that ascent even manifests a spiral pattern (like Becks theory below). See M. L. del Mastros
translation of Walter Hilton, Scala Perfectionis. M. L. Del Mastro, Stairway of Perfection by Walter Hilton.
(Doubleday, 1979). Sufi teachers describe seven levels of the development of the self from complete selfcenteredness to unity and wholeness and oneness with God. See James Fadiman and Robert Frager, Essential
Sufism (HarperOne, 1997), pp. 19-23.
80
Kegan, Robert. In Over Our Heads: The mental demands of modern life. (Harvard University Press, 1994).
81 Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, trans Brian Stone. (Penguin, 1974).
Moral GPS
142
Crucial to that development was what Piaget called decentering, the ability to change focus
and so see things (and the world) from different perspectives. Vygotsky stressed the
importance of social interaction for enabling development. Children learned to see things
from different perspectives through interaction with each other, as long as supportive cultural
scaffolding sustained their growth.
Piaget and Vygotsky were interested primarily in cognitive development. Based on their
studies, later thinkers constructed theories of moral development.
3. Moral Development Theory: Lawrence Kohlberg.
Lawrence Kohlberg presented fictitious moral dilemmas to young people. The classic
dilemma is Heinz, a poor man whose wife suffered from a fatal illness that a newly invented
wonder drug could cure. Heinz could not afford the drug and the inventor-druggist refused to
help. Would it be right for him to steal the drug? Kohlberg studied the kind of reasoning young
people used to sort through such a dilemma. He concluded that there are three levels of
moral reasoning, each level divided into two stages:
Level I: Pre-conventional.
Stage 1: seeking pleasure; avoiding pain
Stage 2: seeking benefits from others
Level II: Conventional
Stage 3: seeking social approval
Stage 4: maintaining social order
Level III: Post-conventional.
Stage 5: affirming a social contract
Stage 6: abiding by universal moral principles.
Basic to each level is the way a person constructs his world and how he regards himself and
other persons within that world. (The world here isnt the geographic globe; its the network
of persons, ideas and things that give structure to a persons life. The term life-world
captures that concept despite its awkwardness.)
In Level I, the life-world is centered on the self and is limited to what directly impacts the self.
In Stage 1, Comfort is good; fear and pain are bad. The self is passive in relation to other
persons. Others are perceived only as sources of comfort (e.g., Heinzs wife cooks good
meals for him) or fear (Heinz might be put in jail!). In Stage 2, however, the self actively
seeks advantage and learns how to manipulate others to gain advantage. Winning advantage
over another is good. Being taken advantage of by another is bad. This stage is also called
instrumental relativism or instrumental egoism.
A major shift in the life-world brings a person to Level II. Other people are now important in
themselves, not just for how they affect the self. The life-worlds center now expands to the
group. In Stage 3, that group is the people with whom the self has a face-to-face relationship
(family, peers). Now it is good to conform to others wishes and so win their approval. It is bad
to offend others and suffer disapproval. (Think how stealing would hurt the druggist.) In
Stage 4, the group expands still further to include people that the self does not directly know,
and the life-world is ones civil and cultural society. Now it is good to obey the law; it is bad to
go against the law. (Stealing is against the law, period.)
What happens, though, when societys rules and conventions appear to be wrong?
Mohandas Gandhi faced such a challenge in the South African society that oppressed
Moral GPS
143
coloreds, and then he thought it through. Rosa Parks faced it on a Montgomery, Alabama
bus. Then Martin Luther King, Jr., took up the challenge and thought it through.
Level III steps beyond the limited life-world of any society. Then a person can constructively
criticize that society on the basis of principles that claim to be universal. This level is decentered, like an impartial observer seeing the self and others as if from above (from an eye
in the sky). In Stage 5, a person steps back from the particular rules of ones society and
asks, in an ideal society, what rules would be best for all? (The law should be changed so
the druggist would have to share the drug with Heinz.) This stage retains the sense of a
structured life-world like that of Stage 4, but is able critically to evaluate that life-world and act
to improve it. In Stage 6, a person focuses on universal ethical principles like stars that can
guide travel into unstructured, uncharted seas. (Life is a higher value than property rights;
Heinz would be justified even in stealing.)
One puzzle for Kohlberg was that many of his subjects seemed to regress in their first year of
college. Their firm adherence to rules (Stage 4) dissolved in a kind of skepticism: they
seemed to become relativists (like Stage 2). Another puzzle was that very few, if any, of the
subjects clearly rose to Level III. Kohlberg based his conception of that level, especially of
Stage 6, on exemplary public figures like Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. How
could he validly claim that these were part of a normal, universal pattern of development?
Later refinements of Kohlbergs theory added a Stage 4 to describe the critical relativism
experienced by college freshmen and distinguish it from the egocentric relativism of Stage 2.
Then Kohlberg discerned two different phases to Level II development. A person at Stage 3
treats the other people in her immediate life-world as she would wish to be treated. Call that
Stage 3A. But then her moral awareness expands to include other people she doesnt yet
know, turning her concrete behavior into a universal rule, the Golden Rule. This is a more
mature phase, called Stage 3B. A person at Stage 4 obeys the particular rules of his
immediate society (Stage 4A). But then his regard for rules expands to respect law in itself,
very much like the ethics of Immanuel Kant (Stage 4B). Ordinary people did rise to this more
mature phase of Level II, attaining some of the qualities Kohlberg had earlier assigned only to
Level III.82
Another puzzle: some few people demonstrated a moral transformation that transcended the
normal process of development. Instead of logically rising to abstract, universal concepts and
principles, these people reported an actual, concrete experience of a holistic infinity, a
universal human connectedness rather than merely universal concepts. Stage 7 became
the tag for this anomalous kind of experience.83
Kohlbergs studies otherwise revealed a consistent developmental process. A boy would take
a stand at Stage 2 (Heinz, just steal the stuff!). But then he would experience discomfort
through the reaction of his peers (But his wife would feel awful if he did that and got sent to
jail! [Stage 3]). Piaget would call that cognitive dissonancea clash between the boys
accepted world-structure and the challenge he faced from outside. That discomfort would
82
Kohlberg, Lawrence; Charles Levine, Alexandra Hewer, Moral Stages : A Current Formulation and a
Response to Critics (Karger, 1983).
83 See Kohlberg, L., & Ryncarz, R. A.,Beyond justice reasoning: Moral development and consideration of a
seventh stage. In C. N. Alexander and E. J. Langer (Eds), Higher Stages of Human Development: Perspectives
on Adult Growth (Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 191-207.
Moral GPS
144
prompt rethinking. Peers might provide models of different world-structures, drawing him to a
satisfactory resolution and so to a higher stage of development.
Theres a crucial insight here for staying together on the Moral Highway. As a person
develops, he can understand the world-structures of his earlier stages. But he isnt able to
grasp the world-structures of higher stages. So a person whos always looking out for
Number One (Stage 2) simply wont perceive the reasoning behind a demand for selfsacrifice on behalf of others. (Might that be Joe Blocks problem?) Further, a person whos
dedicated to the present social order (Stage 4A) is likely to perceive someone at Stage 6 (like
Martin Luther King, Jr.) as a dangerous anarchist. Thats why people who are at lower stages
present traffic obstructions. Reasoning in terms of values and principles will not work with
them. They need help to expand their life-worlds if they are to meet the challenges of the
Moral Highway.
4. Critique: Gilligan
Another interesting pattern arose in Kohlbergs studies: young women consistently scored
lower in moral maturity than their male peers. Moreover, they sometimes raised questions
that didnt fit the standard pattern. (How does Heinz really feel about his wife?) Carol
Gilligan criticized Kohlbergs studies because they were based almost exclusively on male
subjects, and they failed to recognize the validity of those anomalous questions that female
subjects sometimes raised. She also questions Kohlbergs emphasis on abstract principles in
the postconventional level, affirming instead responsibility in particular contexts, a contextual
relativism.84 Gilligan proposed that women speak morally in a different voice,85 but show a
pattern of development parallel to men.
Gilligan described a three-level pattern of development parallel to Kohlbergs, with the first
level focused on self, the second on group, and the third more universal. But what people
sought in those levels was less justifying reasons than motivating relationshipscare. In the
first level, a young person seeks individual survival and cares about the integrity of her own
being. In the second level, a young person seeks to be good, and pursues goodness
through self-sacrificing care for others. In the third level, a person seeks a more balanced
truth, where needs of self are integrated with concern for others: universal care.
Gilligans insights prompted a new approach to thinking about morality, the Ethic of Care.
Check the Tourist Info Center for more on the Ethic of Care.
5. Further Insights
a. Habermas Reconstructing of Kohlberg
START
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
Return to GPS
Jrgen Habermas brings together Kohlbergs stages of moral development with patterns of
communication and social interaction.86 Habermas regards Kohlbergs theory as an indirect
84
Gilligan, C., In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Womens Development (Cambridge University
Press,1982). Habermas distinguishes this relativism from the skeptical relativism of Kohlbergs Stage 4,
noting that contextual relativism does not reject but builds upon formal ethical norms. See Jrgen Habermas,
Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (MIT Press, 1990), p. 176
85 Gilligan, p. 22.
86
Jrgen Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action in book of the same title (MIT Press,
1990), pp 116-194.
Moral GPS
validation of his Discourse Ethics, and offers Discourse Ethics as the most appropriate
philosophic complement to Kohlbergs theory.
145
Habermas accepts Kohlbergs three levels of moral development, the preconventional,

conventional and postconventional, but he supplements Kohlbergs theory with perspectives
based in language and perspectives on the world.
At the preconventional level, in stage one, ones action is controlled by authority
figures.Ones perspective is egocentric (tied to the grammar of the pronoun I), recognizing
the other (you) as a person with authority over me. Any awareness of justice or
rightness has to do with the complementarity of your authority to tell me what to do and
my obedience to you. Expectations are understood in terms of specific behavior patterns.
Authority resides in a particular person or persons (parents, for instance). Ones motive for
obedience is a combination of personal loyalty and fear of punishment.
Another kind of relationship at the preconventional level is that of friends (stage two). Here
the perspective is still egocentric, but now I and you are of equal authority. I interact with
you in order to seek some kind of satisfaction (reward). Justice or rightness is a matter of
balance or symmetry in the compensation each of us receives from our interaction. The
world, in the preconventional level, is identical with the lifeworld in which I and you are
embedded and so take for granted.
The deciding factor for entering the conventional level is based in something already in place
in the growing childs language use. The third person pronoun he or she now becomes
operative in action. I develop the capacity to step back from our interaction and observe
myself as a he and you as a she. You develop the same capacity. We are now able to
reflect upon and judge our interaction as if we were observers. Now our action is likely to be
controlled by expectations tied to our social roles (stage three). We can see ourselves as he
and she from the perspective of our primary social group, and that is where authority
resides (e.g., what will people think?). Our motivation, once based on loyalty to individuals,
desire for reward and fear of punishment, is now a sense of social obligation or duty. Justice
or rightness is a matter of conforming to the expectations of our roles within our primary
social group. Further, we are each able to reflect on our relationship itself as observers,
enabling us consciously to nurture our relationship as an ongoing, deliberate system of
action.
Once interaction reaches beyond our primary social group to the larger society, we see
ourselves as he and she from a perspective of society that reaches beyond the group of
people we know. Our actions are controlled by systems of norms and laws, and we
acknowlege the impersonal authority of society as such. Justice or rightness is a matter of
conformity to those systems of norms and laws. Though our sense of the world has
expanded, in the conventional level it is still identical with the lifeworld in which I and you
are embedded and so take for granted as the way things are.
Then we encounter other lifeworlds, and the way things are becomes uncertain. Nowin
the postconventional level--we see ourselves from a perspective that takes in the whole
world. We recognize our particular lifeworld as simply one option among many equally valid
or invalid--possibilities. The authority of norms and laws now becomes problematic, and they
must be justified if they are to claim validity or authority over our actions. Our earlier
obedience to social mores and norms now appears to have been an abdication of
responsibility for our own moral autonomy.
Moral GPS
146
But how are we to justify any norms for action so that we can function as a society? Social
acceptance is no longer sufficient to authorize a norm. Authority must be based on principles
grounded beyond the assumptions of any particular society. Particular norms must be tested
and justified in relation to such principles if they are to be valid. Justice or rightness is now a
matter of abstract principle.
Unfortunately, we find that principles are themselves often embedded in particular lifeworlds.
We find no absolute principle that can command our actions and the actions of others without
falling back into that abdication of responsibilityand worse, without violating the moral
autonomy of others. Principles must be tested and justified...but how?
There is no higher-level principle to provide a priori that highest level of justification. Any
claim to validity or moral authority remains subject to question and argument. That is where
Discourse Ethics can provide a needed complement to Kohlbergs theory.
At this highest levela level into which I and you find ourselves thrust by the undeniable
diversity of the worlda course of action can be justified only through a procedure called
discourse, i.e. dialog seeking mutual understanding toward cooperative action. This dialog is
serious and stenuous; it is argumentation. Claims for validity must be grounded in good
reasons appealing to the reason and freedom of others. The moral force of any claim is a
matter of the force of argument to the extent, and only to the extent, that it is (or can be)
convincing to all participants in discourse. Now justice or rightness is a matter of recognizing
and observing the procedures needed for justifying norms through argumentation.
Elsewhere the Moral GPS discusses those procedures as the Rules of the Road.
START
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
Return to GPS
b. Kegan and Orders of Consciousness

Gilligans critique brought attention to the importance of relationships in moral development.
How does the self (subject) relate to the other than self (object)? Robert Kegan87
examined that dynamic and revealed a fascinating, paradoxical pattern that he called orders
of consciousness. Infantile consciousness (Order 1) is all subject. An infant is his
experiences and impulses. But then a revolutionary change occurs: the growing infant
mentally steps back to view those experiences and impulses as object. Now the infant is the
one who has such experiences and impulses (Order 2, impulsive stage). Next the child
mentally steps back to view himself as the one who has impulses, and he realizes that he can
act in order to meet needs (Order 2, imperial stage). Another dramatic breakthrough occurs
when the child steps back to view his needy self among other people, and he realizes that
other people are also needy selves (Order 3, interpersonal). Therefore he can act to help
others or to compete with them. Next the developing person steps back to view such
immediate interpersonal relationships, and she recognizes that all those people are sustained
by enduring social structures that she can embrace, resist, or even establish (Order 4,
institutional). Next, she can step back to view her particular society as one among many
87 Kegan,
Robert. The Evolving Self (Harvard University Press, 1982). also In Over Our Heads: The Mental
Demands of Modern Life. (Harvard University Press, 1994). For a summary of Kegans ideas, see Mark
Dombeck, Robert Kegan's Awesome Theory of Social Maturity.
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=11433&cn=28 (accessed 07 20 2011).
Moral GPS
147
such societies, and she can reach out across social, cultural and ideological boundaries to
relate to all human persons (Order 5, inter-individual).88 (Do you recognize here in Order 5
the eye in the sky so essential to the Moral GPS?)
This dynamism of development turns on the paradoxical ability of a growing person to turn
subject into object. That in which my self is so embedded that I accept it as unquestionable
reality (subject) is transformed into that which is different from my self so that I can question it
and see alternatives (object). A person grows by stepping beyond her own limited
perspective and taking a new, larger perspective. Kegan understands this pattern as a
cumulative developmental process, in which each successive layer builds upon and
transforms the earlier layer. But a person ordinarily cannot even conceive of a perspective
higher than the life-world in which the self is embedded. For instance, interaction with others
who are culturally different poses a sharp challenge to a person embedded in Order 4
(institutional). Confrontation will only sharpen this persons hostility to what is different.
Gentle interaction (person to person, as in Order 3) is a more effective stimulus for growth,
even if the person merely becomes accustomed to living around people who are different. 89
When Kegan reflects on a global scale (1994), he sees a sobering challenge. The world is
now multicultural. That is a simple fact, not an ism. It is a fact that persons with widely
varying cultural backgrounds now regularly interact and affect each other. The crucial issue is
how people respond to that fact. Responses in Order 4rigidly defending the cultural
structures of ones particular societylead inevitably to mistrust and conflict. Only an Order 5
response--reaching out across social, cultural and ideological boundaries to relate to all
human personsis adequate to the demands of this era. But here is the sobering challenge:
the vast majority of people now function only in Order 4. Only a few have attained Order 5.
Hence the title of Kegans 1994 book: people now are in over our heads, for modern life
makes moral demands that are beyond the capacity of most people. (That means most
drivers on the Moral Highway are going to be rookies, doesnt it? Drive with caution; drive
with care and patiencepatience even with yourself. All of us have been thrust together into
this perilous, unavoidable quest.)
Kegan remains positive in the face of this daunting challenge. There is a powerful life-force
driving development, he says in his 2002 interview. 90 That drive is to generate ever more
fitting relationships with the universe. That drive has a destination, he affirms; it is going
somewhere. It is a process by which each living piece, or part, is, in a certain way, better
recognizing its true nature. And this is a declaration of faith hereits true nature is ultimately
its participation in a single intelligent whole.91 Here Kegan touches on what Kohlberg had
glimpsed in individuals as a possible Stage 7.
This last insight adds a profound dimension to our understanding of the Moral Highway. This
Highway is not just an instrumental framework that allows particular people to pursue
particular destinations with minimal inconvenience. We are not engaged merely in a
88
Kegan suggested a further stage in which all humanity and perhaps the entire universe (including oneself)
becomes object, so that the subject in effect disappears in something like the Buddhist anatta. See
Epistemology, Fourth Order Consciousness, and the Subject-Object Relationship or How the Self Evolves, an
interview Robert Kegan by Elizabeth Debold. What Is Enlightenment, Fall-winter 2002.
http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j22/kegan.asp (accessed June 7, 2011)
89 See Appiah, Kwame Anthony. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. (Norton, 2006), esp. pp 6985.
90 Kegan, Robert. Epistemology, Fourth Order Consciousness, and the Subject-Object Relationship.
91 ibid
Moral GPS
148
collection of individual quests. The Moral Highway itself is going somewhere, and that
ultimate destination somehow brings all people together as a whole. Moreover, the Highway
itself is constructed and transformed by each persons moral growth, expanding the
Highways capacity to meet the challenge of our era. The Moral GPS is a positive ethic. With
this insight, it may become more: an ethic of hope.
START
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
Return to GPS
c. Beck and the Spiral Dynamic

The global turn of Kegans thinking opens theories of moral development beyond the
personal to the societal and cultural. Don Beck92 finds in the history of cultures a pattern of
development similar to Kegans. Human beings have always been challenged to adapt to
their life conditions. A successful pattern of coping mechanisms becomes a shared system of
values and customs that Beck calls a meme. The meme shapes the mindset of an entire
group, so that the whole society is embedded in the meme. (Kegans concept of subject
would now apply to the whole of a society.)
Beck describes the history of human cultures as a rising spiral of ever more complex
memes. The spiral metaphor captures the developmental principle that each higher
stage of development builds on those before it. Further, at each level the society faces
similar challenges from life conditions, but must meet those challenges in a more
complex and inclusive way in order to succeed. Since Beck identifies each meme by a color,
his overall schema can be expressed in a succinct visual image of a spiral spinning from a
beige start point through rising colors to a green contemporary culture. Beck interprets these
successive cultural memes as modes of seeking survival over against changing
environmental opportunities and threats. But there is more, a second tier of Spiral
Dynamics. In that higher tier, people seek to live fully and embrace the wholeness of being.
Lets climb the spiral.
BEIGE is the earliest meme. At this stage, human consciousness was immersed
entirely in sustaining physical lifehunting and gathering food, procreating, warding off
predatory animals. Instinct ruled. There was little if any sense of a self beyond instinct and
reflex. Society was merely a huddling together for survival.
PURPLE represents the early tribal, animistic stage of human societies. Now people
rose above instinct to connect the conditions of their survival with larger forces about
themmagical powers and benevolent or hostile spirits. At this stage the self was subsumed
entirely within the group and the group was guided by leaders with mystical abilities to
discern the ways of benevolent spirits and ward off malevolent powers.
RED announces the emergence of the Hero, the individual who seized power over
others and asserted himself as the unifying center of the group. Might made right. All that
mattered was maintaining and expanding power over others. Red knew no other law. The
good was success; the bad was failure and the shame that came with failure. Red was the
stage of conquest, beginning before history and enduring through wave upon wave of
92
Beck, Don E. and Cowan, Christopher, Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership and Change
(Blackwell, 1996).
Moral GPS
149
empirein the West, Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and onward. Think of Cyrus of
Persia, Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar.
BLUE overlapped historically with red, because some conquering heroesamong them
the three just namedbrought a sense of purpose beyond enhancing their own power. They
saw themselves as carriers of a higher gooda vision of enduring peace with justice for
subject peoples (Cyrus), of a universal culture of wisdom (Alexander), or of universal rule of
law (Caesar). Human societies had become much larger and more complex. Their unifying
center had to transcend any individual ruler and came to rest in the absolute structure of
principle and law, itself conceived as grounded in a divine monarch or lawgiver. The self was
affirmed through conformity to principle and adherence to law. This structure was considered
absolute and unchanging. Innovation was a word applied to heretics and other outcasts.
The self was the good, loyal subject.
ORANGE is the color that challenged the absolute structures of BLUE with the urge for
progress, for innovation, for exploration. The mind was free to pursue possibilities
undreamed within the fixed principles of BLUE, opportunities not permitted within the rigid
laws of BLUE. Enter the Enlightenment. ORANGE brought optimism into history, along with
revolutions, liberal democracies, free markets, competition, scientific experimentation,
individual lifestyle choices, and rapid social change. Innovation and progress became the
watchwords of the era. BLUE was considered reactionary. The self was now the rugged
individual.
GREEN sensed a huge gap in the worldviews in which BLUE and ORANGE were
embedded. BLUE had suppressed the human spirit through legalism and dogma;
ORANGE had suppressed the human spirit through bloodless rationality. BLUE had thwarted
human community through rigid conformity; ORANGE had thwarted human community
through unbridled egoism. By contrast, GREEN affirmed the human spirit by cultivating
sensibility and spirituality; GREEN affirmed the human community by pursuing equitable
sharing of earths resources and consensual decision-making. The self became one of us,
embraced and affirmed within the one human family without regard to race, gender, culture,
or social class. GREEN began to work avidly for sustainable lifestyles and sought
reconciliation and harmony rather than competition.
Beck sees GREEN as the highest turn--so far--of the spiral as human communities structured
their worlds for survival. But alongside, within, and above that survival-seeking spiral, Beck
sees another tier forminga tier of appreciation. So far, he discerns two memes, both recent,
giving shape to that Second Tier of Spiral Dynamics.
YELLOW steps back from the struggle to survive in order simply to enjoy life in all its
variety and unpredictability. Differences among people, places, things, cultures, and
times are all threads integrated into a single magnificent tapestry of existence, a single
symphony bringing discord into ultimate harmony. Live simply; live in the moment; go with the
flow.
TURQUOISE rises beyond the moment into a sense that we all participate in a single,
living, intelligent, loving totality that both transcends and includes everything we can
know. Everything opens upward. Everything is linked to everything through energy and
through forms of communication both known and unknown. Each human meeting also
manifests and embodies the individuals touching this transcendent/immanent totality. The
self remains distinct, yet is caught up in the magnificent, beautiful, ongoing material/spiritual
event we try to name by saying universe or All, then fall silent.
Moral GPS
150
Becks Spiral Dynamics is more than an attempt to color-code cultural history. It is a

developmental theory. The various memes Beck has described relate to each other as stages
in an organic process of growthgrowth not only of individuals but also of human cultures,
perhaps of human culture as a wholea never-ending upward quest as the title of Becks
2002 interview suggests.93
What drives this quest?
Like Kegan, Beck understands the driving force as a quest for ever more fitting relationships
with the universe. A meme is, after all, a set of coping mechanisms or survival structures, at
least in Becks first tier. A meme is always imperfect and partialit has its good points and its
bad points. If the meme is successful and its bad points cause little stress, the social system
is in equilibrium. When internal or environmental factors put the system under stress, the
current meme is at risk. The society might regress to an earlier meme. So an orderly society
[BLUE] might turn to despotic leadership (RED) in a crisis. (Think 1930s Germany and Adolf
Hitler). Or a people might reach beyond the current meme and construct a new system of
values and responses. So internal conflicts like authoritarian repression and religious wars in
a BLUE society might spark political revolution and new, nonreligious modes of thought
(ORANGE). The combined bad points of BLUE and ORANGE prompted the rise of GREEN,
itself defined largely as what BLUE and ORANGE are not.
Where Kegan believed that the driving force had a destinationuniversal participation in an
intelligent wholeBeck sees no final and perfect stage of human development. The quest is
never-ending, its drive not teleological but dialectical. Human societies simply react to stress,
and then they seek equilibrium. That equilibrium will eventually encounter stress and so
continue the quest beyond itself for a higher-level equilibrium.
As a result, Becks theory is less optimistic than Kegans, and that is important for the Moral
GPS. You see, a society under stress has no guarantee that it will emerge happily into a
higher, kinder meme. In a time of crisis, a society is as likely to regress as it is to rise beyond
its limitations.
Beck talks of a tipping pointa point where the tendency to return to an earlier meme shifts
and the tendency to form a new, higher meme prevails. In a society at the tipping point,
competing memes collideeach focused on the negative aspects of the others. The future is
up for grabs, and no completely satisfactory resolution beckons.
(This writer is based in Maryland, USA, in the time just after the inauguration of Barack
Obama as President of the United States. The 2008 campaign could be understood as an
epic battle of ORANGE/BLUE vs.GREEN. But it would be a mistake to think simply of the
ORANGE/BLUE direction as regression and the GREEN direction as progress. GREEN too
has serious flaws, especially in its negative form, i.e. focusing on the flaws in ORANGE and
BLUE. Unfortunately, neutralizing ORANGE and BLUE is as likely to unchain RED and bring
havoc as it is to usher in a new era of harmony. GREEN of itself is not the answer.)
The Never-Ending Upward Quest, An interview with Dr. Don Beck by Jessica Roemischer. What Is
Enlightenment, Fall-Winter 2002. http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j22/beck.asp (accessed June 7, 2011).
This interview provides an excellent, succinct summary of Becks theory. The spiral image above is from that
source.
93
Moral GPS
151
So what are we to do? What is required of us at this critical tipping point in the history of
human cultures?
Beck looks to the emergence of the Second Tier as a crucial development in our era. What is
the power that leaps beyond the First Tier to attain the Second? The First Tier, recall, is
entirely focused on survival. The major force in every meme of that tier is fearfear of
predators, fear of malevolent spirits, fear of competing empires, fear of social chaos, fear of
failure, fear of repression. Fear is a negative force, and on the Moral Highway it is likely to
propel a driver straight back into his garageor through a guardrail.
The leap to the Second Tier requires that people let go of fear. Trust, we called it as we were
setting up our Moral GPS. (Drive with Confidence, remember?) So simple it seems, letting
go. In this context, it is like letting oneself fall--upward. Yet that simple move changes our
relationship to other people. We no longer automatically expect others to be adversaries or
competitors. Now we can appreciate others as fellow human beings, cooperating to keep the
shared Moral Highway running smoothly and running forward.
START
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
Return to GPS
d. Hoffmann, Gibbs: thought AND feeling and something deeper.

Kegans later ideas and Becks Spiral Dynamics seem speculative in comparison to the more
practical theories of Kohlberg and Gilligan (though Kohlbergs Stage 7 points beyond what we
ordinarily consider practical). Our perspective has ascended even beyond our eye in the sky
to something like a Gods eye view of the Moral Highway. That may be inspiring, but it
seems to reach beyond available evidence, doesnt it? Perhaps we should descend to the
more immediate challenge of helping rookie drivers keep up with traffic on the Moral
Highway. Dont lose sight of what Kegan and Beck have showed us, though. That helps us
appreciate the larger importance of our immediate, practical efforts on the Moral Highway.
With Gilligan, developmental thinking focused more on interpersonal relationships. Then
Kegan studied the subject-object structure of developing relationships. But what about the
quality of relationships? How does the quality of interpersonal relationships develop? Martin
Hoffmann94 identified levels of reciprocity as crucial to understanding moral development.
Hoffmann was dissatisfied with Kohlbergs stress on moral thinking and on determining the
right. Rather, he focused on moral feeling and on determining the good.
Hoffmanns theory describes stages of a persons capacity for empathy, for responding
affectively to another persons situation and distress. At its earliest stage, empathy is
superficial. So an infant might begin crying because another child is crying without any sense
of why the other is distressed. The infants focus is on his own distress, and that has merely
been triggered by the others distress. A slightly older child understands anothers distress as
a something happening to the other child, and may feel a similar distress by imagining a
similar thing happening to himself (like the notion of sympathy as defined in the Glossary).
A young person approaches mature empathy when she is able to take the other persons
perspective, to experience a situation as the other person experiences it. At this stage the
94Hoffman,
M. L. (1981). Is altruism part of human nature? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40,
121-137. Also Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice. (Cambridge University
Press, 2000).
Moral GPS
152
focus has shifted from the self to the other person. That empathy then can expand beyond
the immediate so that a person can discern the situation of another over an extended time, or
discern the situation of an entire group or class of people. Such mature empathy includes a
responseempathic indignation if the distress is caused by a third party; empathic guilt if the
distress is in any way caused by oneself. Hoffmann notes that this other-centered empathy is
more durable, but the self-grounded empathy is more intense. An effective response to the
distress of another will maintain a balance of bothdurable, intense empathic response. That
response becomes compassion when the person is moved to action aimed at alleviating
anothers suffering. Compassion may be directed to the immediate situation of the suffering
person, or it may be directed to the larger circumstances that caused or allowed the suffering.
However, empathy has its own risks and shortcomings. One is empathic bias in favor of an
immediate situation. A person focused on alleviating immediate suffering may completely
miss more serious suffering that is less immediate. (This is the which other? problem that
the Golden Rule brings with it.) Another is empathic overload or compassion fatigue that
can debilitate people who constantly work to alleviate suffering (think of the burnout rate of
critical care nurses).
John Gibbs95 offered a solution to the weaknesses of Hoffmanns stress on empathy. Both
risks--bias and overload--can be minimized if empathy is at the same time informed with
Kohlberg-style stress on principle. Empathy can turn someones total energy to one persons
suffering and so actually obstruct efforts to fix a larger problem. Thought affords a critical
evaluation of that persons suffering in relation to the wider context. On the other hand,
principle can turn someone into a fanatic for a cause (one sort of Road Menace). Empathy
enables such a person to see his cause from the perspective of the people affected by it (like
Hanna Arendts reflective judgment), safeguarding him from doing harm when hes
intending to do right. Gibbs argues for a coprimacy of thought and feeling in moral
developmentmuch like the balance of opposites thinking we encounter when we look at
Main Routes and Alternate Routes.
Central to Gibbs discussion is reciprocity, the quality of relationship between persons at
various stages of moral development. Building on Piaget and Kohlberg, Gibbs describes the
earliest stage as centration, where a very young child is entirely immersed in himself.
Corresponding to Kohlbergs Stage 2 is instrumental reciprocity, where a favor done means
a favor owed, or an injury suffered demands an injury inflictedtit for tat. Reciprocity is
genuinely mutual at the next stage, when trust and sharing govern person-to-person
relationships. Such relationships expand into the generalized Golden Rule, where the default
setting for all others is respect and trust. From there it is a short step to affirm systems that
enable and protect such relationshipsparallel to Kohlbergs Stage 4. Gibbs notes that this is
what love looks like when the perspectives of all concerned are taken into account.96
Beyond this stage, Gibbs parts from notions of invariant stages to affirm existential
developmentlife-changing events that may dramatically alter a persons moral perspective.
Such events fit no predictable pattern. They may touch a person at any stage of life from
adolescence on. They include sudden life crises as well as slow processes like meditation or
philosophical reflection. Gibbs finds one such event most informative: near-death
experiences.97
95
Gibbs, John C. Moral Development and Reality: Beyond the Theories of Kohlberg and Hoffman (Sage, 2003).
Gibbs, p. 195.
97 Gibbs, chapter 8
96
Moral GPS
153
Near-death experiences are of two kinds. In an autoscopic experience, a person may see
herself undergoing surgery as if from the ceiling of the operating room. In a transformative
experience, she may encounter a transcendent light, feel great joy or peace, and encounter
loved ones who have already died. A life review may occur early in a transformative
experience.
However, not all near-death experiences glow with light and peace. Some people experience
darkness and distress or feel desolation and negative judgment. It appears that ones
behavior and relationships in life affect the quality of the near-death experience. Gibbs
observes, for instance, that highly controlling individuals [like the Road Menace?] tend to
have frightening near-death experiences.98 In one case, an overbearing mans life-review
was from the perspective of those he had bullied, and his life was radically changed as a
result. As Gibbs says, this extraordinary social perspective taking would seem to imply that
in some ultimate sense, ideal justice or moral reciprocity is not successfully violated, that the
world in the deepest sense of the word is just after all.99
Gibbs discussion of near-death experiences provides three insights that are helpful for the
Moral GPS.
-
First, such experiences reinforce a concrete, actual sense of universal connectedness,

not merely the abstract and hypothetical universality of philosophic theories. This
universal connectedness appears as lifes home port, the ideal destination of each
persons life-journeyand by extension, the destination of the Moral Highway itself
(affirming Kegans insight).
Second, such experiences emphasize the central moral importance of perspectivetakingthe ability to see issues (and oneself) from others points of view.
Third, the quality of ones behavior toward others during life may have a profound
impact on whether one reaches that ideal home portor not.
One further thought comes less as an insight than as a glimmer from these considerations.
Moral GPS is a simple discernment and decision process that rides a metaphor: living morally
in the world is like driving safely on a multilane highway. This metaphor rests on the
assumption that there is only ONE Moral Highway, and that all human beings are on this
together. That assumption is grounded in our common habitation of the one earth and in our
sharing of that earths one history. But these are abstract concepts.
Gibbs suggests that our connectedness is much more actual and concrete than that, much
more immediate and present, much more profound and intimate. In near-death experiences,
people seem to access a deeper reality of human connectedness that resembles quantum
physics: separation of time and space is irrelevant in universal immediacy. Gibbs says,
If life is profoundly interrelated, if we are somehow part of each
other, then to put oneself in anothers place is to experience not
only the other but also part of oneself, and to help or hurt others is
ultimately to help or hurt oneself. Put more ideally, acts and
relationships of love may contribute to the deep flow of life,
enriching one and all.100
98
Gibbs, p. 240
Gibbs, p. 223
100 Gibbs, p. 226
99
Moral GPS
154
Then each effort of each person to drive the Moral Highway safely and courteously is at the
same time building the Highway. As we drive the Highway, it seems that were steering the
Highway itselfideally, toward its own ultimate destination of universal connectedness.
START
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
Return to GPS
6. Applying Theories of Moral Development

We began with the challenge of traffic obstructionshow to deal with Joe Block, the guy
who seems incapable of seeing things from any perspective but his limited one.
Theories of moral development are helpful in figuring out where such traffic obstructions are
coming from. Just as you can identify basic ethical assumptions beneath a persons moral
stand, you can identify the level of ethical development beneath the limits of a traffic
obstruction. You can use that understanding to help that person to find his way back into the
flow of travel on the Moral Highway.
All the theories of development show a common pattern.
-
In the earliest stages, a persons perspective is centered in the self: what I want, what I
fear, and how I might use others to benefit myself.
Later, a persons perspective is centered in the group. Relationships with others

become truly reciprocalface-to-face relationships at first, and then more generalized
relationships. Societal norms claim allegiance because they are recognized as
necessary conditions for larger groups of people to live together in harmony.
A multicultural world, however, requires that a persons perspective transcend any

particular national or cultural group (a decentered perspective). This eye in the sky
perspective is needed if everyone is to travel together safely on the Moral Highway.
Unfortunately, relatively few people attain the eye in the sky perspective. (The Moral GPS is
designed to help you develop that perspective.) Therefore, you can expect to encounter
traffic obstructions frequently on the Moral Highway. You can expect to discover blind spots
in yourself.
You can apply what you now know about moral development to help yourself and others to a
higher, wider moral perspective. The Moral GPS points to four areas of application:
communication, perspective-taking, vicarious perspective-taking, and problem-solving.
1. Communication. One reason Joe Block went rigid might be that you were bombarding
him with all your reasons, trying to overcome his resistance. Your mistake. Dont think of
moral discussion as a debate. In a debate, each side clings steadfastly to its own position
and tries to refute objections to it. Nobody changes. A third party has to resolve the debate by
judging a winner. Nobody changes or grows.
Effective moral discussion aims gently toward mutual understanding. Accept Joes position as
a valid one, even if you disagree. Let him explain his reasons. Dont try to refute; try to
understand so that you can see things from his perspective. Two things will happen then. Joe
will relax, losing the fear thats making him so defensive. Then Joe just might return the favor,
Moral GPS
155
allowing you to explain your reasons (not as right but just as yours), and he just might begin
to see things from your perspective. Your understanding of developmental theory tells you
how important that is: its a breakthrough to a higher stage of moral development.
(Remember, too, that you could be wrong. Always be self-critical and ready to change.)
Effective moral discussion is also oriented toward action (see Problem Solving below). A
merely theoretical discussion can lead to a standoff, agreeing to disagree, acknowledging
that theres much to be said on all sides, and going nowhere. Thats the equivalent of a
stalled car in the traffic lane of the Moral Highway. Not helpful.
2. Perspective-taking. Crucial to development is the ability to see an issue or a situation
from other peoples perspectives. Perhaps communication will achieve that breakthrough. In
some cases, especially when Joe Blocks stand would cause harm to others, a more
imaginative approach may be helpful. Let Joe imagine himself into the situation of a person
negatively affected by his stand. How would he feel? Does he still think his stand is
completely correct? Gibbs101 addressed serious antisocial behavior with group work that used
role-playing to bring a person to take others perspectives. A bully, for instance, would roleplay the victim of his bullying and begin to reevaluate his behavior.
Another application of perspective-taking is involved in nonviolent resistance. Gibbs102
described a case where typical conflict behavior (tit-for-tat instrumental reciprocity) was met
by passive resistance, sparking a change in one of the participants. Martin Luther King, Jr.103
and Mohandas Gandhi104 stress how absolutely important it is not to respond to anger with
anger, to violence with violence. Rather, passive resistance requires that a person empathize
with the oppressorlove your enemiesand focus not on revenge but on bringing about
that persons constructive change. In nonviolent resistance, this unexpected response has in
fact prompted moral development and change in a society and sometimes in the very people
who had been the oppressors.
3. Vicarious perspective-taking. Stories have the marvelous power of allowing us to step
safely into another persons life-world for a while. People can grow through literature or
drama. Often stories provide scripts for moral action, models for responding to different
kinds of situations. Stories are like simulated driving experiences on the Moral Highway, a
moral driver education.
Different kinds of stories address different levels of moral development. Action stories that pit
a lone hero against forces of evil, for instance, echo Becks red meme and resonate with
Kohlbergs Level One, egocentric moral thinking. Some stories present an imperfect
hero/heroine working selflessly with others to overcome challengesechoing Becks green
meme and Kohlbergs Level Twoor higher. Think, for instance, of the Harry Potter series.
Sometimes you can foster a persons moral development just by recommending a good novel
or movie.
4. Problem-solving. The Moral GPS is not designed for abstract or theoretical discussions.
Like a car spinning wheels on glare ice, such discussions can generate lots of heat, create a
stink, and move nowhere. Moral thinking has to be practical. The Moral Highway is designed
101
Gibbs, chapter 7
Gibbs, p. 115
103 Letter from Birmingham city Jail inn A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr.
ed. James Melvin Washington (Harper and Row, 1986), pp. 289-302.
104 Satyagraha, from excerpts in J. Thomas Wren, Leaders Companion: Insights on Leadership through the
Ages (The Free Press, 1995), pp. 72-77
102
Moral GPS
156
for movement, for action. Every step of the Moral GPS process aims toward decision and
action.
Our communication, therefore, must be oriented toward arriving at practical action in
response to a moral issue. What shall we do? Its important, of course, to address the
question, What do you think? But that question is a preliminary step toward decision and
action. One of Joe Blocks problems is that he doesnt recognize the need to act, to move
hence hes a traffic obstruction.
If youre able to keep focus on the practical need to act, youll be more likely to prompt the
traffic obstructions to get moving. Be careful, though, not to use that focus to reinforce your
own moral positionthats skidding toward being a Road Menace. Simply reiterate, What
shall we do? You do not need to reach theoretical consensus on an ethical principle. Thats
good, because such consensus is unlikely. But you can achieve practical consensus on what
to do, even though each participant in the discussion may affirm that value for a different
reason. Then you can act.
This set of strategies can help to widen individual persons perspectives (including your own).
Thats why theories of moral development are discussed in the Try to Stay Together step of
the Moral GPS, under the heading helping rookie drivers. Theories of moral development
can serve you as tools in seeking consensus toward action to address a particular need.
It is clear, thoughespecially from the ideas of Kegan, Beck and Gibbsthat a lot more is at
stake in your efforts. If you succeed in getting Joe Block to see other peoples points of view
in one situation, Joe will have changed. Every person who is enabled to widen his or her
perspective becomes a facilitator for smoother travel on the Moral Highway. For every person
who is able to see things from the Eye in the Sky perspective, the Moral Highway itself
becomes wider and straighter. If Kegan and Gibbs are correct, the Highway even bends
closer to the highways destinationa universal lived connectedness.
START
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
Return to GPS
Moral GPS
157
Critical Thinking
START
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
Critical Thinking is built into the Moral GPS in three principal ways:
1. The Moral GPS requires that you examine moral decisions as if from an eye in the
sky, that is a point of view that transcends your personal perspective, and
2. The Moral GPS enables you to support moral claims with good reasons warranted by
widely accepted values and theories.
3. The Moral GPS helps you toward constructive insight into implications and alternatives.
1. Eye in the Sky
Travel on the Moral Highway requires that each person takes other persons seriously into
account. The pure egoisti.e. the person who considers only self-interest when making
decisions, excluding even others self-interestis a Road Menace. A perspective that takes
other persons seriously into account has been called a Moral Point of View.105 This point of
view is impartial, i.e. it does not give preference to ones own assumptions and interests over
against those of others.
Prof. David Cooper has neatly summarized what this Moral Point of View means in the
contemporary multicultural context.106 In order to be impartial, this perspective must be:
- rational
- universal
- self-critical
- conducive to intercultural respect and empathy
- compatible with cross-cultural dialog.
Rational. This perspective must be capable to making sense to people generally, by
communicating in understandable terms, by supporting claims with good reasons, and by
grounding those reasons in generally acceptable values and theories. (This links to
supporting moral claims below.)
Universal. Rather than being dependent upon particular cultural or ideological assumptions,
this perspective must be accessible to all persons whatever their cultural background.
Self-critical. A person with this perspective is (or strives to be) conscious of his or her
assumptions and recognizes those as partial and subject to evaluation in relation to others
assumptions. If you are self-critical, in other words, you wont take yourself too seriously,
youll avoid pre-emptive moral judgment of others, and youll laugh at yourself a lot.
Conducive to intercultural respect and empathy. If you know that your worldview is partial and
if you are rational, then you will readily listen and learn from others. If you dont take yourself
too seriously, you are open to appreciate others and even to see things (including yourself)
from their point of view (that is, you are capable of empathy).
Compatible with cross-cultural dialog. Dialog on the Moral Highway is oriented toward action:
what shall we do? This is different from a debate, in which opposing views compete in an
effort to win in the judgment of a third party. Dialog aims at least toward mutual
105
Kurt Baier, Moral Point of View (Cornell University Press, 1958).

David E. Cooper, Ethics for Professionals in a Multicultural World (Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004), p. 327.
106
Moral GPS
158
understanding, at best toward consensus and collaborative action. Hence a pre-emptive
claim to exclusive validity falls short of a Moral Point of View. This is the destructive way of
the Moral Bigot or Moral Imperialist.
The Moral GPS calls upon you to attain such a Moral Point of View. The elements of that
perspective are woven throughout the GPS.
2. Good Reasons Supporting Moral Claims
Academic ethics often assumes a debate framework, where opposing viewpoints offer
arguments to support their positions and do their best to expose flaws in opponents
arguments. As a result, academic ethics is likely to focus on the truth value of ethical
statements rather than on the basic concern of the Moral Highway, what shall we do.
Nevertheless, logical tools of argument may prove useful in seeking mutual understanding
and consensus. They can help you frame and evaluate reasons supporting moral claims.
That can enable people to choose more wisely among alternatives.
A workable model for ethical argument has been developed by the philosopher Stephen
Toulmin.107 He analyzed the logical structure of argument according to a legal model.
a. Toulmin Logic
Philosopher Stephen E. Toulmin analyzed the logic of argument as it works in a courtroom.
He begins with the claim or conclusion that needs to be proved,
then examines the facts or reasons that are presented as the grounds for the claim
(evidence),
then makes explicit the logical assumptions by which the grounds warrant the claim,
then makes explicit the backing that validates the warrant.
i. Claims.
Claims are assertions put forward publicly for general acceptance (Toulmin 29). Claims
must be clearly defined before it is possible to assert them effectively. Once a claim is
asserted, it is the responsibility of the person asserting it to provide generally accepted and
relevant facts [or good reasons] (grounds) on which the claim is to be based (Toulmin 31).
What counts as adequate grounds depends upon the kind of claim that is made. The 2003
Iraq war was justified is a moral claim. Lets see how that claim might be argued.
ii. Grounds.
One provides grounds by presenting statements of generally accepted facts (or good
reasons) that can support the truth or soundness of the claim. In a legal case, such facts
would be stipulated as accepted by all parties. If they are not so accepted, then the fact
itself becomes a claim that must be supported by grounds (evidence). The burden of proof
always rests upon the person asserting the claim.
Weapons of mass destruction were suspected is a factual statement intended to support the
claim that the 2003 Iraq war was justified. However, the counter-evidence is No weapons
of mass destruction were ever found. Since the burden of proof rests upon the one asserting
the claim, in this case the claim fails.
107
Stephen Toulmin, et al., An Introduction to Reasoning (Macmillan, 1984).

Moral GPS
159
iii. Warrants.
On what basis do facts or reasons count to support the claim? Warrants are statements
indicating how the facts are connected to the claim or conclusion now being offered (Toulmin
45). Warrants are general rules or rules of thumb that serve as a kind of license for using a
certain type of grounds to support a particular kind of claim.
Weapons of mass destruction present a real, present and certain danger to human life. This
constitutes a Just Cause for a defensive war. This is an appeal to a general moral principle to
show how the presence of weapons of mass destruction (grounds) supports the claim that the
Iraq war was justified.
iv. Backing.
But how do we tell if the warrants themselves are trustworthy? Backing is provided by
general statements making explicit the body of experience relied on to establish the
trustworthiness of the ways of arguing in any particular case (Toulmin 61). So backing in a
legal context would be the entire body of statutory and common law governing the jurisdiction
in which the claim is argued. On the Moral Highway, backing is the entire body of ethical
norms and values (see Choose Route).
This definition of Just Cause is based in the Just War theory, an ethical norm that has been
the only rational and moral way to justify war accepted in Western Culture for the past 1600
years.
b. Using Toulmin Logic108
You can apply Toulmins framework to your own or others arguments. First, analyze the
argument: what exactly is it claiming, and how is that claim supported? Then evaluate it for
soundness and cogency.
Analysis
1. What are/is the main conclusions(s) or claim(s)? These may be stated or unstated, may
be recommendations, explanations, and so on. Conclusion indicator wordslike "so,"
"therefore," "for these reasons"show that a conclusion (claim) is intended.
2. What are the reasons (data, evidence, grounds) supporting the claim?
3. What is assumed (that is, implicit or taken for granted, perhaps in the context) that
warrants drawing the conclusion from the reasons?
4. Clarify the meaning (by the terms, claims or arguments) where needed. You can avoid
lots of confusion by making sure everyone is talking about the same thing.
Evaluation
5. Are the reasons acceptable?
o How certain does the claim purport to be? The more certainty thats claimed, the
stronger the support must be.
o In what context is the claim made? For instance, a statement made under oath
in a courtroom is more serious than a comment made in a smoky bar.
108
This process of analysis and evaluation follows Alec Fisher, Critical Thinking: An Introduction (Cambridge
University Press, 2001).
Moral GPS
160
o Does the claim require expertise or research to verify it?
o Is the claim based on widely known reasons? The more obscure the claim or the
reasons, the stronger the support should be.
o How well does the claim and its reasons fit with other widely held beliefs?
o Are the reasons given based on information from a credible source?
To evaluate the credibility of a source, consider:
- who is the source?
o Do they have the relevant expertise?
o Does their reputation suggest they are reliable?
o Are they impartial, or do they have a vested interest or bias?
- What? Is the evidence plausible and easy to believe? Is it a direct observation or a
judgment based on inference?
- Where, when? What are the circumstances and context of the sources
information?
- Why? What justification does the source provide for presenting the information?
o Does the source have firsthand knowledge or is his information hearsay?
o Is it a primary source or a secondary source? This is important especially in
academic studies. Is an argument for virtue ethics, for instance, based on
Aristotles own works or an someone elses interpretation of Aristotle?
o Does the source provide direct evidence for the claim, or evidence that
requires interpretation or inference?
- Who else? Is there corroboration from other sources?
6. Are inferences and assumptions acceptable?
Does the reasoning support its conclusion(s)? Another way to ask that is, could the
reason(s) be true and the conclusion still be false?
There are degrees of validity for inferences.
o Deductive validity: If the reasons are true, is it IMPOSSIBLE that the
conclusion be false? For instance, if a person is running, that person is
moving.
o Beyond a reasonable doubt. If the reasons are true, are there no credible
reasons that could contradict the conclusion?
o More likely than not. If the reasons are true, on the balance of the
evidence, are the reasons supporting the conclusion more convincing that
reasons contradicting it?
Are there other relevant considerations/arguments that strengthen or weaken the
case? Has the person making the claim omitted or ignored information that would
affect the soundness of the claim?
7. Are the reasons based on fallacies? An important part of critical thinking is the ability to
recognize common informal fallacies that may be offered as reasons to support a claim.
Often people slip into fallacies through carelessness in their thinking. A Road Menace,
however, will deliberately use fallacies in order to confuse or frustrate efforts toward
consensus. You can find lists of informal fallacies in elementary logic books or even in
basic college writing handbooks. You can find them live most often in political campaigns.
Here is a list based on the Harbrace College Handbook:109
Ad hominem: attacking the person who presents an issue rather than addressing the
issue itself.
109
based on the Harbrace College Handbook, 12th edition (Harcourt Brace, 1994).
Moral GPS
161
I disagree with Candidate X because his 5 oclock shadow makes him look sinister.
Bandwagon: Everybodys thinking this, so you should too.
Everyone cheats on tests, so why shouldnt I?
Variant: presenting an argument (e.g., a product) amid glittering, flag-waving, upbeat
images.
TV auto ads featuring slick videos and popular singers but no performance
information.
Begging the question: Presenting as true the very thing that must be proved.
Abortion is murder.
Equivocation: a claim that falsely relies on the use of a term in two different senses.
Sugar is good for you because sugar is an essential component of the body.
[Sucrose; glucose]
False analogy: assuming that if two things are alike in some ways, they must be alike in
other ways.
People dont hold hypothetical beliefs like fairies and unicorns, so they shouldnt hold
hypothetical belief in a creator God.
False authority: assuming that an expert in one field can be a credible expert in another.
As a Darwinian scientist, something strikes me when I look at religion.
False cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc) Assuming that since one event follows another,
the first is the cause of the second. Mr. Bush took office in January 20, 2001, and
all economic indicators fell sharply within his first nine months of office.
False dilemma: (either/or) Stating that there are only two alternatives when others exist.
Either we drill, baby, drill, or well completely depend on foreign oil.
Guilt by association: An unfair attempt to hold a person responsible for the beliefs or
actions of others. That Galilean carpenter talks with prostitutes; he must be immoral.
Hasty generalization: (jumping to conclusions). A conclusion drawn from insufficient or
biased evidence. Yes, the neighbor boy was in an accident. All teenagers are
careless drivers.
Non sequitur: a conclusion that does not follow from the reasons given.
I studied for days and still got a low grade. Therefore the test was unfair.
Oversimplification: An argument that leaves out relevant considerations about an issue.
Terrorists only religion is hate.
Red herring: Dodging the real issue by drawing attention to an irrelevant (but
inflammatory) issue. Why worry about the environment when there are terrorists out
there?!?
Slippery slope: Assuming that if one thing is allowed, it will be the first step in a
downward spiral. Banning partial birth abortion will undermine all womens rights and
equality.
3. Constructive insight.
Constructive Insight includes the following characteristics:
Moral GPS
162
a. Perceiving and evaluating connections.
- Can you show how ideas can be applied to another idea or issue?
- Can you identify basic issues or themes that link many particular problems?
- Can you apply ideas to problems in order to propose solutions?
- Can you reason from several events to a causal link behind them?
- Can you weigh various courses of action in order to find the best solution to a
problem?
- Can you discern underlying patterns or themes in different peoples opinions?
b. Perceiving and evaluating differences.
- Can you show how generally similar ideas differ from one another?
- Can you distinguish marginal from essential differences?
c. Perceiving and evaluating assumptions.
- Can you see, and show, what unstated reasons lie behind a persons view?
- If you find an idea foreign to you, can you discern what ideas or values would have
to be taken for granted as true for that idea to make sense?
- Are you aware of your own assumptions, and are you able to justify those?
d. Perceiving and evaluating implications.
- Can you see, and show, what further conclusions an idea may lead to? (Avoid the
slippery slope, by the way.)
- Can you use that line of reasoning to show the strength or weakness of such an
idea?
4. Some free advice: K.I.S.S.
Keep It Simple, Stuuh, Sir (or Maam).
Always use a simple, straightforward style.
1. Use the simplest, most common word that is still exact.
The majority believes that the approbation of society derives primarily from diligent
pursuit of allocated tasks. Translation: Most people believe success results from hard
work.
2. Avoid wordiness. Omit needless words.
In the early part of the month of August, a hurricane was moving threateningly toward
Houston.
Better: In early August, a hurricane threatened Houston.
3. Use definite, specific, concrete language.
Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that
success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate
with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must
inevitably be taken into account.
(George Orwells satiric translation of Ecclesiastes 9:11, Again I saw that under the
sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor
riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the skillful; but time and chance happen to them
all.)
Moral GPS
163
Creativity
START
MENU
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
Too often, discussions of moral issues amount to a clash of opposing viewpoints and
accomplish nothing. When people are set against each other, their focus is likely to be
negativeattempting to refute those who have opinions different from their own. That
negative focus is a serious liability on the Moral Highway for two reasons: 1) it sets people up
for a collision, and 2) it compresses peoples focus so that they are unable to see possibilities
that reach beyond the established moral positions on an issue.
An interesting thing can happen when you shift from an us versus them mentality to
recognize that were all in this together. You stop seeing other people as one-dimensional
caricatures and start seeing them as complex, unique individuals. You might actually smile,
and your smile might actually spread. Then peoples inner spirit can be freed from the
constriction of negativity. Their creativity can be set free. Then it is possible to work together.
Creativity is a bit like a bright, trembling flame. One persons creativity alone is like a single
candle in an immense dark space. Tap the creativity of many people, and its not just lighting
more candlesthe flame spreads, mutually nourishing, shedding light much brighter than the
sum of individual creativity.
Think of a solitary musician, a single plaintive melody on a clarinet. Then let that clarinetist
jam with a jazz group. The music is more than the sum of individual instruments, because
creative play magnifies each ones possibilities.110
Creative thinking can change peoples sense of the context of the decision they face,
enlarging their sense of what is at stake and what is possible. If you let yourself get stuck in
an us versus them traffic jam, the best you can do is act as a broker for competing interests,
and the best you can expect is a compromise that satisfies nobody. If were all in this
together, you may raise peoples sights beyond the immediate conflicted issue to higher
goals and more basic interests. Conflict then can transform into cooperative creativity. 111
So how do you go about sparking creativity? Three preliminary steps are essential:
1. Keep the big picture in mind. Were all in this together.
2. Focus on action. Its important to everyone to resolve an ethical issue rather than to try
to win in endless controversy. The key question is not whos right, but what shall we
do.
3. Suspend criticism. Creativity wilts in a hostile environment. Declare a play time just for
bouncing ideas around. There will be time later to sort through the new possibilities that
arise.
Then you might use some techniques for sparking creativity. One good source is Anthony
Westons Creative Problem-Solving in Ethics.112 Here is a summary of techniques that he
suggests, applied for example to the question whether physician-assisted suicide is justified
for a critically ill person.
1. Exploration
110
See Stephen Nachmanovitch, Free Play: The Power of Improvisation in Life and the Arts (Putnam, 1990).
See James MacGregor Burns, Transforming Leadership: A New Pursuit of Happiness (Grove, 2003).
112 Oxford University Press, 2007.
111
Moral GPS
164
a. Look carefully at all situational variables, especially the "outlying" factors that
are usually overlooked in ethical literature. (For instance, what were the family
relationships of persons who sought physician assisted suicide?)
b. Be alert for "suggestive facts" that offer clues toward new ways of interpreting
the issue. (Did most who sought suicide have little or no family to support
them?)
c. Get help: talk with stakeholders and others in order to get new ideas. Important:
suspend judgment in order to keep open the way to new insight.
d. Compare and contrast: How have other societies addressed similar issues?
How have other eras of history dealt with similar issues?
2. Provocation: off-the-wall ways to think out-of-the-box.
a. Exotic associations. Use a "prompt"a random word or image--and freeassociate. (A potted geranium: how on earth could that be relevant? But might
more pleasant, life-filled surroundings support a person who otherwise would
seek assisted suicide?) Important: don't drop a prompt until you've given it time
to bring fruitWeston suggests three full minutes, minimum.
b. Extremism. Think utopian: suspend concerns for the practical limits of the
situation and try to imagine how this issue would be solved in a perfect world.
Then work back from that to what might be possible now. (In a perfect world
wouldn't the seriously ill person be accepted as an important and revered
contributor to the common good? In the present world, many forms of the
Hospice movement already embody such a perspective.)
3. Reframing Ethical Problems: Might the "problem" really be an opportunity?
a. Look again at the outlying factors and perspectives that are usually overlooked,
and ask what changes might be possible. (Seriously ill people are often isolated
from social contact, and that may lead some to seek assisted suicide.)
b. Consider the problem as an opportunity. (What is society missing when
seriously ill people are isolated? What do they have to offer? How could that
contribution be practically achieved?)
c. Think prevention. What factors led up to the current ethical problem, and what
steps could have been taken to avoid it or lessen its impact?
Westons techniques reflect a process that has changed from a whos right? competition
into cooperative effort toward transforming the entire context of a moral issuein effect,
making the world a much better place.
Weston says, Ethical problem-solving is not just a matter of finding a way out of a specific,
practical fix. It is also an occasion to better live out our values and, indeed, to better the world
itself. That is the very essence of ethics!113
Creativity is essential on the Moral Highway. Remember that, while we are all traveling on it,
at the same time we are steering the road itself. Creativity enables the kind of resolutions that
move a community beyond conflict into new, more inclusive ways of living together.
Creativity, in other words, is integral to an ethic of hope.114
113
Weston, p. 6.
John Wall, The Creative Imperative: Religious Ethics and the Formation of Life in Common. Journal of
Religious Ethics, 33:1 (2005), 60-61.
114
Moral GPS
165
Caf
START
MENU
REST AREA
Operators Manual
Glossary
Some terms have special meanings in the GPS
Web resources
Websites that can guide you further along your way.
Moral GPS
166
Glossary
MENU
REST AREA
cafe
Many of the words listed here are used in a sense unique to the Moral GPS.
Those words are marked with an *asterisk.
Absolutism: the claim that certain moral norms apply equally to all persons and in all
circumstances with no exceptions. Such absolutes are also called exceptionless norms.
Acceptable Norms: moral values and theories that reasonable people find cogent and even
convincing. Norms may be acceptable within a particular group (e.g. a corporate code of
ethics within that corporation) or they may be universally acceptable, at least potentially.
*Alternate Route: a moral value or moral theory that balances and corrects the crash risk of
another value or theory. Most often, you must consider both sides of such a balance, for each
side will compensate for the risks involved in the other. See About Alternate Routes.
Assumptions: attitudes, values, or principles that are usually unconscious and unexpressed,
but that a person takes for granted because of that persons particular background. Ones
assumptions can be made conscious by careful self-examination. Another persons
assumptions can be discerned by asking, what principles or values must be taken for
granted as true if this persons moral stand is to make sense?
*Breakdown: life conditions for an individual or group that lack essentials for enabling
persons to pursue the good life. Such conditions include poverty, hunger, lack of health care,
lack of education, lack of employment, lack of access to communication, and the like. Since
these conditions undermine freedom or moral autonomy, a basic moral aim must be the
alleviation of all such conditions. (see Social Justice) Opposite: common good.
*Collision: a failure of moral dialog that makes it impossible for different views to seek
mutual understanding. A collision occurs when, instead of seeking to understand others and
seek consensus, a person with a particular moral perspective tries to override the moral
autonomy of others and force them (sometimes through physical violence) to bend to his
view. War is the worst kind of collision. The person who causes a collision by closing out
other views, no matter how right his values or principles, becomes a Road Menace. Such
behavior violates the principle and the trust that underlie all morality: mutual respect for moral
autonomy.
Common Good: the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and
their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment.115
Compassion: the ability to be moved to action by anothers suffering so as to alleviate that
suffering and correct the conditions that caused that suffering. See empathy; see also
Golden Rule.
*Congested Area (also traffic jam): A social dilemma or hot issue that is unresolved and
the subject of extensive public controversy.
115
Lumen Gentium, 26, in The Documents of Vatican II, ed. Walter M. Abbot (Guild Press, 1966).
Moral GPS
167
MENU
REST AREA
cafe
*Crash: a moral error, a violation of a moral norm or value. A crash may not be deliberate,
but that does not remove moral accountability. A crash may occur when a moral decision has
to be made quickly, without the opportunity to stop and think. A crash may occur when there
is no good alternative and a person has to act (lesser evil). A crash may occur when a person
considers only one aspect of a morally complex issue (one-way driver). A person inattentive
to the Moral GPS may be crash-prone and so become a Road Menace.
*Crash Risk: every moral value or theory has a "crash risk" or "occupational hazard"--limits
that are likely to lead a person into a kind of moral error specific to that theory. Reduce crash
risk by taking seriously into account the alternate or balancing moral value or theory.
Cultural Relativism: the claim that all moral norms and values are valid only within their
particular culture, so that there is no basis on which a cultural norm or value can be morally
challenged. For example, one culture may place strict limits on what women are allowed to
do (vote; drive; own property), but there is no basis recognized for claiming that is unfair.
*Dangerous Intersection: a moral dilemma that can be resolved only if people with very
different moral perspectives come to mutual understanding. Most social dilemmas (e.g.,
abortion) are dangerous intersections. The danger is that if anyone approaching the
intersection refuses to consider other points of view (moral bigot), a collision is likely.
Decision paralysis: a person responsible for deciding avoids decision by delay,
unreasonably seeking more information, or trying to shift responsibility to others.
*Detour: creatively reframing a situation to bypass a moral dilemma through compromise or
by developing an alternative that maintains most or all values at stake in the dilemma.
Discrimination: failure to respect the differences of others (unconscious moral bigotry),
resulting in their exclusion from participation or even consideration in decisions.
*Ditch: on the Moral Highway, the ditch represents being off the road, in serious danger of
crashing. A ditch is an area to avoid. In some cases ("lesser evil") it can't be avoided.
Empathy: understanding and appreciating another person's feelings and experiences as if
from that person's point of view; the ability to enter vicariously into another's life-world so as
to see and evaluate things (including oneself) from that person's perspective. (contrast
sympathy)
Ethic: (n) A system of moral theories, principles and values. Ethical (adj): the quality of
action, behavior or attitudes as explicitly or consciously conforming to moral principles or
values. This is a wildcard word, and therefore different writers will intend different senses to
the word. The terms ethical and moral are often considered synonymous. In the Moral
GPS, ethical ordinarily emphasizes thoughtful reflection on behavior. See moral.
Evil: what is most hated, disapproved, disparaged, and to be avoided. A condition in which a
person or persons are unjustly deprived of those elements that make for a full human life:
health, education, freedom, good repute, companionship, and the like.
Freedom: see Moral Autonomy; contrast with License.
Moral GPS
168
MENU
REST AREA
cafe
"Golden Rule:" "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Taking individual
and cultural differences into account would add this provision to the rule: "provided you
understand what it is like to be those others."
Good Judgment: ability to evaluate actual conditions of a moral decision and so apply moral
values and theories in a way that is appropriate to the demands of those conditions.
Good Reasons: values that serve as grounds for justifying a moral claim or decision and
theories that warrant the validity of values, likely to be convincing or at least understandable
to reasonable people in moral dialog See critical thinking in the Tourist Information Center.
Harmony: the Confucian ideal of cooperation and peace within and among persons who live
according to Confucian virtues. Safe, smooth travel together on the Moral Highway.
Hierarchy of Values: a person's order of values from most important to least important. A
persons hierarchy of values may be implicit and unconscious. You can discern it in which
values that person would sacrifice (lower on the hierarchy) in order to obtain other values that
are higher on that persons hierarchy of values.
Historical Relativism: a moral theory holding that contemporary norms and values cannot
validly be used to evaluate behavior in past eras. For instance, the contemporary world
almost universally condemns slavery, whereas slavery was almost universally accepted in
Biblical and Classical times.
Hope: trust in the future that does not ignore risks and dangers and does not make specific
demands, for it affirms the future in a way that transcends particular expectations.
Ideology: a set or system of abstract ideas that defines a particular groups lifeworld and is
applied to public matters. An ideological perspective imposes abstract ideas on actual
situations, ignoring practical experience and the perspectives of others. (See Moral Bigot.
See also Hannah Arendts insight into the dangers of ideology.)
Impartial: fair, just; treating or affecting all parties equally and not favoring one party over
another. Impartial is by no means the same as impersonal, for impartial judgment may
even require personal participation or involvement in moral dialog.
Instrumental good: something valued as a means to obtain or maintain an intrinsic good.
Money is such an instrumental good.
Instrumental reasoning: a form of prudence that calculates of the most effective and
efficient means to a goal.
Intrinsic good: something that is valued in and for itself, e.g. life, health, happiness.
Justification: good reasons supporting a moral claim or decision, usually presented as part
of the decision-maker's accountability to persons affected by that decision. Justification seeks
to bring about agreement on their part, or at least understanding.
License: freedom to do whatever you want, go wherever you want, however you want,
without interference or restraint of any kind, including consideration for others. On the Moral
Moral GPS
169
MENU
REST AREA
cafe
Highway, license is a characteristic of the Road Menace. ("License" is NOT authorization to

drive on the Moral Highway!) See instead "moral autonomy."
Life-world: the network of persons, ideas and things that define and structure a persons life
or the shared life of a group.
"May": options open to a decision-maker that are not positive obligations ("ought") and do
not violate negative moral norms or cross moral boundaries.
Metaethics: critical analysis and reflection on moral theories (theories about the theories).
Metaphor: a form of language that uses a tangible, familiar thing to speak of a less tangible,
unfamiliar reality, based on some likeness between the otherwise unlike things. Metaphor
thereby allows some understanding of the less tangible. (See Operators Manual)
Moral: (adj) the quality of action, behavior or attitude as good or bad, right or wrong, as
determined by principles, values, or social custom. This is a wildcard word, and therefore
different writers will intend different senses to the word. The terms moral and ethical are
often considered synonymous. In the Moral GPS, moral ordinarily emphasizes actual
behavior. See Ethic.
Moral Accountability (root: account, countreckoning what is owed [ought]): the obligation of any
person who makes a decision to provide good reasons for that decision to all who are
affected by it, and to accept blame if those reasons prove inadequate.
Moral Agent: a person who is able to act intentionally (i.e. with knowledge and freedom) and
so can be held accountable for his or her actions.
Moral Attitude: one's stance in relation to other persons and to decisions in the context of
moral issues. Moral attitudes may be a matter of habit, part of a person's moral character.
Moral Autonomy: a person's free embrace of life in the world with others. One's decisions in
pursuit of one's goals are limited by the shared goal of keeping the Moral Highway open and
safe for all travelers. The morally autonomous person accepts limits and social norms as
reasonable accommodation to the autonomy and good of others. (Contrast "license.") Note
that moral autonomy affirms not so much independence as interdependence. Such moral
autonomy is an ideal (a should). One ought to respect others as if they are morally
autonomous, and do what is possible to foster growth of moral autonomy.
Moral Bigot: a person who considers his moral perspective the only valid one and so refuses
to listen to other views. The moral bigot may be aggressive, actively attempting to thwart the
expression of contrary views (the "moral imperialist"). Moral bigotry may also be unconscious,
the simple assumption that everyone thinks or lives as he does, so that anything different has
to be mistaken, wrong, or simply irrelevant (see discrimination).
Moral Boundary: a negative moral norm that limits options. So, for instance, a person
pursuing a utilitarian route (greatest good for the greatest number) must not violate the rights
of the minority.
Moral Character: the particular mix of moral and mental traits that form over time through
value-related decisions. See Virtue. A person's particular path on the Moral Highway.
Moral GPS
170
Moral Claim: typically a "you ought" statement made by one person to another in actual
interpersonal discourse, calling on that person to acknowledge an actual moral obligation. A
moral claim is not an abstract proposition, but a concrete speech act within an interpersonal
relationship. One person appeals to the reason and freedom of another and grounds that
appeal in moral values, warranted by moral theory.
Moral Common World: basic things or aspects of life shared by all human beings. All human
beings share the same earth, the same basic history, and the same basic patterns of
language and relationship. These common elements make communication possible.
Moral Development: consistent patterns of growth in moral awareness from selfcenteredness through group-centeredness to universal awareness. (See Helping Rookie
Drivers in the Tourist Information Center.)
Moral Dilemma: a situation in which two opposed and mutually exclusive courses of action
are both equally supported by values and theories.
Moral Fear: a persons sense of losing moral bearings in the face of multicultural
perspectives, a sense of moral disintegration as the norms and values in which one is
embedded are subjected to question. Moral Fear may be a symptom of a transitional phase
in moral development (see Helping Rookie Drivers, especially Kegan, in the Tourist
Information Center).
Moral Habit: the pattern of repeated decisions, often unreflective, that manifests the values
and moral character of a person.
Moral Ideal: a vision a world where moral decisions are not constrained by conditions or by
conflicting values. A particular moral ideal is the affirmation of a particular value without
having to consider limiting conditions or conflicting values. See "moral right of way."
Moral Imperialist: a person who seeks to impose his personal moral judgment on others
rather than respecting their moral autonomy. See "moral bigot."
Moral Integrity: consistency between a person's actions and that person's moral ideals and
values, linked with consistency between that person's moral values and acceptable moral
norms. Alternately: the harmonious development of virtues in one's character.
Moral Issue: a moral decision that cannot be made according to habitual practice (business
as usual), requiring people to think through and decide among conflicting alternatives.
Usually a moral issue will be a moral dilemma.
Moral Maturing: advancing the process of moral development, often through confronting
dilemmas that require a person to enlarge his or her moral perspective.
Moral Obligation (root: ligare, to tie: to be linked, bound or tied to another).116 The demand
that a valid moral claim places upon a person to act in accord with that claim. Note that such
obligation ordinarily arises within an interpersonal relationship (tie, after all), but the
obligation may reach much farther than the particular relationship (as, "you ought to do what
you can to ensure the essentials of life for everyone in the world").
116
Etymology of Anglo-Saxon based words rely on the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford University Press,
1971).
Moral GPS
171
MENU
REST AREA
cafe
Moral Point of View: the perspective of a morally autonomous person, i.e. one who does not
give preference to ones own assumptions and interests over against others. From this
perspective moral questions can be judged impartially.117 This perspective is rational,
universal, self-critical, conducive to intercultural understanding, and compatible with crosscultural dialog. See Critical Thinking in the Tourist Information Center.
Moral Readiness: habitual alertness to the moral implications of situations and decision
alternatives. Ability for early recognition of moral dilemmas and challenges to moral integrity,
coupled with an ability to discern the moral perspectives of others and to frame morally
acceptable or preferable alternatives.
Moral Responsibility: a person's relationship with other persons that takes others' interests
into account in making decisions, accepts others' trust to respect moral autonomy, responds
constructively to moral claims, and holds oneself accountable to provide good reasons to
others for one's choices.
*Moral Right of Way: the presumption that one is obliged to follow a moral value or norm (on
the "should" level) unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise (conflicting values or
norms) presented by actual circumstances (the "ought" level). See prima facie duty.
Moral Theory: critical reflection on what kinds of things may count as good reasons in a
dialog with other rational persons regarding the grounds for claiming something as a moral
value, the preferring of one value to another, or the justification of a decision among
alternatives.
*Moral Tune-up: to ensure moral readiness, a person may need to think through the entire
Moral GPS, including a re-evaluation of personal goals, self-understanding, values, and
commitments.
Morally Good: a term of moral evaluation associated primarily with positive results. (Contrast
"morally right.") The opposite term is "bad" or "evil," and refers to unjustifiable harm. An
action can be morally good and yet morally wrong. (See About Alternate Routes.)
Morally Right: a term of moral evaluation associated primarily with conforming to law or duty.
(Contrast "morally good.") The opposite term is "wrong," the violation of a norm or betrayal of
a duty. An action can be morally right and yet morally bad. (See About Alternate Routes.)
Negative norm: a moral value or principle that obliges one to refrain from action that would
violate the norm. For instance, the norm do not steal obliges me only to refrain from taking
anothers property. It does not oblige me to take steps to protect anothers property.
*One-Way Driver: a person whose moral reasoning is based exclusively on one moral theory
and who is unable or unwilling to think in terms of alternate routes. One-way drivers may
become traffic obstructions. If a one-way driver completely closes his mind to other points of
view, he can become a moral bigota Road Menace
See Jrgen Habermas, Morality and Ethical Life in Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (MIT
Press, 1990), p. 198.
117
Moral GPS
172
Oppression: using power unjustly so as to deprive others of power to live freely and make
decisions. Such oppression may be deliberate, with an identifiable oppressor to blame, or it
may come about as an unconscious by-product of social structures and practices.
*"Ought" (root: to owe a debt):118 An actual moral obligation, based on values and/or norms,
to carry out (or to refrain from) a course of action in actual circumstances, considering all
aspects of a situation. Such obligation is limited to what is possible for a person to do.
(Contrast "should.")
Positive norm: a moral value or principle that obliges one to take direct action in order to
realize it. For instance, the norm all citizens must be educated obliges the society to take
direct action to provide schooling for everyone.
Prima Facie Duty: a positive or negative moral norm that makes a moral claim, before actual
conditions are taken into account. (see Moral Right of Way)
Prudence: good judgment about the best means to attain a goal, or about how to work with
others to attain a goal.
Reductionism: arbitrarily limiting or reducing the kinds of things that count for good
reasons so that other considerations (or other people) are excluded.
*Road Conditions: particular circumstances in practical situations that must be considered if
one is to apply a value or norm appropriately to the situation. While the value or norm may
have the moral right of way, one may need to yield if other equal or higher values are at stake
in the situation, or if the value would not actually be attained in practice.
*Road Hazard: a moral issue that requires careful steering to resolve. The most common
road hazard is a moral dilemma.
*Road Menace: a person who does not accept moral responsibility (crash-prone) or who
disregards the moral autonomy of other persons. For example, see the unethical egoist and
the moral bigot. A Road Menace will obstruct efforts to reach mutual understanding and
possible consensus, and he is likely to cause a collision. Further, the behavior of a Road
Menace undercuts the mutual trust on which the Moral Highway depends and so he is a
threat to all moral dialog.
*Rookie Driver: a person who has not yet developed the ability to address moral issues in a
way that adequately allows for differences. A morally immature point of view is centered on
oneself, and lacks the ability to take others seriously into account. A partially developed moral
view is centered on ones own group norms, and lacks the ability to consider the global eye
in the sky point of view. Rookie drivers can grow. See Helping Rookie Drivers in the Tourist
Information Center.
*"Should" (root: to owe a debt):119 A hypothetical moral obligation, based on a value and/or
norm, to carry out (or to refrain from) a course of action in general, without considering all
circumstances of a situation. (Contrast "ought," see "prima facie duty.")
118
1971).
119
1971).
Moral GPS
173
MENU
REST AREA
cafe
*Skid: actual conditions in which a persons actions or choices place that person in proximate
danger of a crash or collision. Moral integrity requires that the person act immediately to
correct those conditions.
Social Dilemma: a moral dilemma in the public arena that has reasonable, morally
autonomous people on opposing sides providing good reasons for mutually exclusive
alternatives. Often social dilemmas bring polarization: people refuse to listen to each other.
Stakeholder: any person likely to be affected by a moral decision. In Business, responsibility
to stakeholders is contrasted to responsibility only to stockholders.
*Stalled Vehicle: a person who tries to avoid taking a moral stand or who is affected by
decision paralysis. See Decide!
Subjectivism: the claim that all moral values are internal attitudes of particular persons and
have no objective basis that can validly oblige others to observe that norm.
Sympathy: understanding and appreciating another person's feelings and experiences by
imagining oneself in that persons situation. Contrast empathy.
*Traffic obstruction: a person who lacks the ability to address moral issues in a way that
adequately allows for differences and for particular circumstances. A traffic obstruction
impedes efforts to reach mutual understanding and possible consensus. For example, see
rookie drivers, people at less mature stages of moral development. See also One-way
drivers, people who cant think in terms of alternate routes, or stalled vehicle, a person who
tries to avoid decisions. Traffic obstructions can be helped to move along (unlike the Road
Menace). See Helping Rookie Drivers, About Alternate Routes, and Decide!
Values. moral values are aspects of shared living that are considered morally important.
Positive values (good) are things to be sought and fostered. Negative values (bad) are to
be avoided and eliminated (if possible). Values can serve as a basis for moral claims. Values
can be intrinsic or instrumental. Values are more concrete than theories.
Virtue (root: strength): Moral habits that, as part of one's moral character, lead a person to
act consistently in ways that seek moral good (typically the mean between two extremes) and
avoid moral evil. Specific virtues affirm particular values, such as truthfulness, justice or
benevolence. See Virtue Ethics.
*Wrong Way: a course of action that crosses an acceptable moral boundary without
justification.
Moral GPS
174
START
MENU
REST AREA
cafe
Web resources
Some useful links regarding ethical theory, congested areas and professions
See also Sources in the Operators Manual
Philosophy resources
http://www.philosophytalk.org (accessed 08 24 2011)
http://plato.stanford.edu/ the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Accessed 08 24 2011)
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy Philosophical dictionary (accessed 08 24 2011)
General ethics resources
http://ethics.sandiego.edu/ (accessed 10/28/2011)
http://www.globalcompact.org (accessed 03/26/2013)
http://www.globalethics.org (accessed 10/28/2011)
http://www.emory.edu/ETHICS (accessed 03/26/2013)
http://www.scu.edu/ethics (accessed 03/26/2013)
http://www.josephsoninstitute.org/MED/MED-4sevensteppath.htm (accessed 03/26/2013)
http://www.igc.org international efforts toward justice and peace (accessed 03/26/2013)
http://www.apc.org social justice and sustainable development (accessed 03/26/2013)
Sites linked to particular professions
http://freedomtocare.org/iane.htm (nursing) (accessed 03/26/2013)
http://www.acponline.org/ethics/?hp (medical) (accessed 03/26/2013)
http://www.ana.org (nursing) (accessed 03/26/2013)
http://www.bioethicsinstitute.org/ (bioethics) (accessed 03/26/2013)
http://www.elon.edu/andersj/ethics.html (information technology ethics) (accessed 03/26/2013)
http://www.findlaw.com/01topics/14ethics (law) (accessed 08 24 2011)
http://www.journalism.indiana.edu/Ethics (journalism) (accessed 03/26/2013)
http://www.moralcompass.com (business) (accessed 03/26/2013)
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/2011_NEA_Handbook_Code_of_Ethics_of_the_Education_Profession.pdf
(education) (accessed 08 24 2011)
http://www.netimpact.org business practices for a sustainable world(accessed 03/26/2013)
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001461/146180E.pdf (accessed 03/26/2013) bioethics
declaration on a global ethic
http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/ethic.pdf (accessed 03/26/2013)
United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html (accessed 03/26/2013)
the Earth Charter
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html (accessed 07/20/2015)
Moral GPS
175
My GPS
START
MENU
REST AREA
The Moral GPS works best when you program YOUR settings into it.
DOWNLOAD the Moral GPS.
(It's a Microsoft Word document, created using Windows 8.)
Then complete My GPS by thinking through the following questions.
Save it as your own.
OR
(Its a .pdf file, created using Adobe Acrobat XI. The MyGPS section is set
up as fillable forms.)
(BTW, the Moral GPS is copyrighted. Use it, but sharing it's a no-no.)
My Story
My Mirror
Worksheet: Where Are Others Coming From?
My Overall Goals
My Part of Goals for All
My Areas to Avoid
Worksheet on a Particular Goal
My GPS Worksheet on Road Conditions
My GPS Worksheet on Steering Carefully
My GPS Worksheet on Staying Together
My GPS Worksheet on Decision
My GPS Worksheet on Evaluation and Accountability
My "Go Home" Settings
My Driving Practice
Moral GPS
176
My GPS: My Story.
START
MENU
REST AREA
MyGPS
Heres a guide for reflecting on your personal story.

Use it; then return and revise as your self-understanding grows and changes.
What people in my life have most influenced my moral values? How?
What events in my life have most influenced my moral values? How?
What limits do I experience due to the circumstances of my life?
What opportunities to I have due to the circumstances of my life?
What responsibilities have the circumstances of my life placed upon me?
Moral GPS
177
How have other people regarded me or responded to me. Have I been surprised by
that? Why?
If you keep a diary or journal, review it and reflect on it from time to time. If you wish, try
writing an autobiography, just for yourself. Sometimes just trying to do that will awaken
memories youve left behind, memories that may make a huge difference for you. Always
be willing to revise, of course.
(back)
Notes
Moral GPS
178
START
MENU
REST AREA
MyGPS
My GPS: My Mirror
What are my basic moral attitudes?
______Are my relationships with others basically competitive or cooperative?
______Do I consistently pursue goals, or do I wait to see what comes along?
______Are my goals positive (striving for a "good") or negative (striving against "bad")?
______Do I deal with issues directly or try to avoid issues?
______Do I acknowledge mistakes or seek excuses/blame others?
______Do I listen to others in order to understand or in order to refute?
______Do I accept criticism of your moral judgments, or is it end of discussion!?
______Do I think theres a clear right way and wrong way for every moral issue?
Reflection: How much am I at risk of being a traffic obstruction? A stalled vehicle? Even a
Road Menace?
What moral values do I consider most important?

(Am I seriously including goals and ideals for all?)
(check Tourist Info Center for help)
Of those, which values would I be willing to sacrifice for which others?
What moral theories do I find most convincing? (check Tourist Info Center for help)
What moral theories do I find least convincing?
Moral GPS
Am I a one-theory moral thinker? Or do I consider an issue from many sides?
179
(back)
I could be wrong
Notes
Moral GPS
180
START
MENU
REST AREA
MyGPS
My GPS Worksheet: Where Are Others Coming From?

(back)
First, back off from the immediate issue to be decided. Relax. Try to get the other person
to share his or her story. Then try to figure out:
(back to Stay Together)
What is this persons basic moral attitude?
What values are most important to this person?
What is at stake for her in this issue?
What moral theories are most convincing to this person?
Is she a one-way driver or does she consider different perspectives?
Moral GPS
Might she be a rookie driver and need help toward a more mature view?
181
(back)
I could be wrong
Notes
Moral GPS
182
START
MENU
REST AREA
MyGPS
My GPS: My Overall Goals

Reflect on:
What qualities do I seek in myself?
What qualities do I seek in my relationships with others?
What do I want to do in my life?
(more)
Moral GPS
What qualities do I seek in the conditions of my life?
183
(back)
I could be wrong
Notes
Moral GPS
184
START
MENU
REST AREA
MyGPS
My GPS: My Part of Goals for All

The goals and ideals for all on the Moral Highway are exactly that: goals and ideals.
They reflect the way everyone's travel should be.
Should is not Ought.
No one is obliged to change the whole world overnight.
But all are obliged to do what they can toward attaining those ideals.
Program that global concern into your Moral GPS
Attain appropriate freedom for everyone

What can I do?
What have I done?
What ought I do?
Ensure the essentials of life for everyone

What can I do?
What have I done?
What ought I do?
(back)
Moral GPS
185
START
MENU
REST AREA
MyGPS
Eliminate exclusions
What can I do?
What have I done?
What ought I do?
Foster mutual respect for moral autonomy

What can I do?
What have I done?
What ought I do?
Work out differences through cooperation

What can I do?
What have I done?
What ought I do?

(back)
I could be wrong
Moral GPS
186
START
MENU
REST AREA
MyGPS
My Areas to Avoid
Initial Settings.
Draw from your mirror, your values and your theories to form a "short list" of areas to avoid.
ORDER YOUR LIST from what you want to avoid in the worst way to what you might endure.
(back)
Travel-weary additions
What has your experience added to your list of areas to avoid? Subtracted from it? To the
order you set?
Reflect on these, and add to your Go Home setting.
(back)
Moral GPS
187
I could be wrong
Notes
Moral GPS
188
START
MENU
REST AREA
My GPS Worksheet on a Particular Goal
MyGPS
1. Is this particular goal a worthy goal?

How does it fit within my overall goals?
How does it fit in with my part of the goals and ideals for all?
Is it a goal worth seeking, or is it a waste of my time, energy, and resources?
2. Am I seeking this goal prudently?

Have I evaluated my alternatives?
Is this goal within my means?
Have I talked with others affected by my choice?
3. Am I heading for a crash or a collision?

Does this goal take me into Areas to Avoid? Does it cross important moral boundaries?
(back)
I could be wrong
Moral GPS
189
My GPS Worksheet on Road Conditions

START
MENU
REST AREA
MyGPS
Road Conditions
What values are at stake here and now in this decision?
Which of these values may conflict? (Be prepared to steer carefully!)
What Moral Boundaries must I consider in order to avoid a crash? (Check your Areas to
Avoid.)
Other People
Who else will be affected by this decision? (who are the stakeholders?)
Who among these people (if any) ought to participate in deciding? (If others ought to be
involved in deciding, you will need to stay together.)
Moral GPS
190
Who among those you just listed may be a traffic obstruction and need help to get up to
speed?
Who else among these people ought to be informed of the decision and the reasons for it?
(To whom ought you hold yourself accountable?)
Back to Eyes on the Road
Notes
Moral GPS
191
START
MENU
REST AREA
MyGPS
(back to Steering Carefully)
My GPS Worksheet on Steering Carefully

Managing a Dilemma: when values conflict.
1. Is this a real dilemma? Are there real values at stake on both sides? Which values are at
stake in each alternative?
2. What is my hierarchy of values? Sort alternatives according to that hierarchy.
3. What are the theories supporting each conflicting claim in the dilemma? What are the
crash risks of those reasons? How would the alternate routes affect the strength of each
claim?
Moral GPS
192
4. Think critically. Reflect creatively. Sketch out possible detours.
(back to Steering Carefully)

(back to Detours)
Notes
I could be wrong
Moral GPS
193
START
MENU
REST AREA
MyGPS
My GPS Worksheet on Stay Together

Preliminary: before you directly address the decision-Who are the people participating in the decision? Help them to feel comfortable with each
other.
Estimate: where is each of them coming from?
Are any of the other people familiar with the Moral GPS? If so, make sure they know what
you are aiming to do.
Estimate: are any among them likely to be a traffic obstruction? (Traffic obstructions are
rookie drivers or one-way drivers. Review Helping Traffic Obstructions to clarify. You may
want to take the time to think about theories of moral development.)
Try to address traffic obstructions FIRST, before attempting the six-step strategy.
See below.
The Six-Step Strategy.

1. Focus on action.
Be alert. Are people talking about whats right or good? Steer them toward what we
can or must do.
2. Eyes on the Road.

Remember the should/ought distinction, and keep focused on the need to act.
Moral GPS
194
3. Rules of the Road.

Be alert for people immediately evaluating others statements. You might refer to
brainstorming rules: let ideas flow at first, without evaluating them. (Shift evaluation to the
next steps.)
4. Work through the Values at Stake.

Discussion will produce a few alternatives for action. Ask for a sense of which of these
alternatives seems best, and then ask what makes it (or them) good alternatives. (That is
a value question.) This step in the discussion may bring you to consensus.
Those alternatives are:
5. Work through the Theories that Support the Values

If you face a conflict of values, Youll need to use your knowledge of moral theories.
Ask each person affirming one of the opposing values, why is this important to you? The
response may be in value terms, but you should be able to recognize the assumption (theory)
behind it: good for me? For us? Aim to help each person to step back from his or her stand to
the reasons for that stand. Aim for people to understand each other. (back to Stay Together)
6. Ask for Consensus.

Do NOT ask a question like, Sowhat do you think? or What should we do? You
started with those questions.
You noted down the alternatives above. You worked through what is good about them
and why.
First ask, Are we ready to act on this?
Then state the most likely alternative, Shall we do thus and so? (This is not an openended question; its a yes/no question.)
It is best NOT to vote. Aim for consensus. Vote only as a last resort.
Shall we
Moral GPS
195
Helping Traffic Obstructions

Be sure you are familiar with the different kinds of traffic obstruction so you can
recognize whats happening if your effort at constructive dialog falters.
If you are lucky, you may be able to identify potential traffic obstructions in the
preliminary phase.
If not, and your dialog slows because of the traffic obstruction, take a break.
Identify your traffic obstructions.
From the Moral GPS, select strategy (ies) to help the obstructions.
Is there another person in the group whose thinking is like the obstructions and yet is
able to understand differing points of view? If so, try to get that person to help the
obstruction.
This person .may be a (rookie) (one-way driver).
Strategy to help:

Strategy to help:

Strategy to help:
Road Menace?
If you think you have a Road Menace among those participating in the decision process,
be cautious.
First, Why do you think this person is a Road Menace?
Take a break from discussion. Try strategies for helping rookie drivers. To what extent
do those strategies help?
If they do not help, How might you quarantine the Road Menace, i.e. prevent him from
interrupting or trying to coerce/intimidate others?
Moral GPS
196
Do you need to suspend the decision-making process? (A cooling off time may be
helpful.)
A last resort may have to be isolating the Road Menace from the decision process.120
Is that your only option apart from letting the Road Menace dominate the group? What
makes you certain of that?
If you opt for this last resort, the Road Menace ought to be given a calm, firm, reasoned
explanation for that move based on the Rules of the Road, and invited back into the
process (or the group) provided he abides by those rules.
Notes
I could be wrong
There is a side story to the neighborhood described in this section of the Moral GPS. The closet Road
Menace also attempted to hijack the neighborhood organization by having a small group within the organization
take over a meeting (the ringleader actually usurped the chair). The other members, prepared, immediately
moved to adjourn, leaving the small group talking to itself outside the official meeting. Caution: that kind of move
can result in a rift rather than bringing the Road Menace back into dialog.
120
Moral GPS
197
START
MENU
REST AREA
MyGPS
My GPS Worksheet on Decision

IF THIS IS A GROUP DECISION, BE SURE EVERYONE IN THE GROUP IS READY FOR
DECISION.
If someone is NOT ready, you may have to address decision paralysis.
First step: locate the deciding authority
1. Is this a personal decision or a group decision?
2. If it is a personal decision, is it yours to make? (If not yours, whose?)
3. If it is a group decision,
- Is there an established way of locating the deciding authority?
- if not, FIRST decide how and by whom the decision is to be made.
4. Aim for consensus. Remember, voting is a last resort.
(back)
Second step: lay out the options.

1. Your earlier discussion should have resulted in several options. List them.
2. Take the time to clarify the moral claim each option implies.
3. On the basis of the moral claims, prioritize your options.
(back)
Moral GPS
Third step: Decide.
1. Ensure that everyone is ready for decision.
198
2. Remind everyone that once a decision is made, its too late for second thoughts.
3. Remind everyone that the decider(s) must hold themselves accountable for the decision.
4. Do it. Dont look back.

(back)

1. Accept ownership of the decision.
2. Communicate the decision and the reasons for it to stakeholders.

(back)
Decision paralysis
1. EARLY IN THE PROCESS, sense whether any in the group are affected by decision
paralysis.
2. Talk with that person about the nature of a decision and what it means to accept
responsibility.
3. You may have to help a rookie driver. Review that process.

(back)
Moral GPS
199
START
MENU
REST AREA
MyGPS
My GPS Worksheet on Evaluation and Accountability

Results:
- what good was sought in my decision? To what extent was it achieved?
- what harms were risked by my decision? To what extent were they minimized?
- what unforeseen results came from my decision?
- To what extent were they good?
- To what extent were they harmful?
Moral GPS
Feedback:
- What system have I established to ensure feedback from all stakeholders?
Summarize positive responses
Summarize negative responses
Summarize responses to things that were unforeseen in the decision.
How have I acknowledged and shown appreciation for feedback:?
200
(back)
I could be wrong
Moral GPS
201
START
MENU
REST AREA
MyGPS
My "Go Home" Settings

Remember: Where am I? What is my story?
Now consider: Have I changed? For the better? Or do I need a tune-up?
Remember: Where do I come from? What are my attitudes, values, and principles?
Remember: Where do I seek to go, overall?

Remember: How do I help to keep travel safe on the Moral Highway?

I could be wrong
(back)
Moral GPS
202
MENU
REST AREA
MyGPS

My Journal of Reflections on Tough Decisions
If you've used your Worksheets on Steering, Staying Together, and Decision for this
decision, review those.
Now that it's done, reflect:
What makes me feel good (or at least okay) about this decision?
What makes me feel not so good (or even terrible) about this decision?
Have I compromised my values? Shared values? Have I crashed?
Moral GPS
How has this decision changed me for the better? for the worse?
203
Where am I now on the Moral Highway?
Go to My Go Home Setting to summarize the impact of your reflections.
I could be wrong
(back)
Moral GPS
204
My Driving Practice
Notes from Case 1.
(back)
Phase 1.
Phase 2.
Phase 3.
I could be wrong
Moral GPS
Notes
205
Moral GPS
Notes from Case 2.

Phase 1.
Phase 2.
Phase 3.
Phase 4.
206
(back)
Moral GPS
Notes
207
Moral GPS
208
MENU
Cover
Title Page
START
GPS Overview
REST AREA
go to Flow Chart
OPERATOR'S MANUAL
1. Acquiring Satellites: "Where are we?"

A. Eye in the Sky
1. Location You are here.
2. Check the Mirror. Where are YOU coming from?
3. Rules of the Road: Language
4. Careful! Youre not the only one on the road.
5. Drive with Confidence. Caution with Trust.
B. Other Drivers Where are others coming from?
C. Road Hazards and Congested Areas
Moral Dilemmas, Controversies and Dangerous Intersections.
2. Where to?
A. Look Ahead
D. Particular Goals
E. "Go Home" setting
3. Choose Route
B. Main Routes and their Alternate Routes (major moral values and theories)
-Care
-Results: egoism and utilitarianism.
-Duty (Natural Rights and Kantian Duty Ethic)
-Side Roads: Absolutism, Relativism, Subjectivism, Objectivism, and Determinism.
C. Areas to Avoid (negative norms / moral boundaries)
D. Detours (Ways to get around road hazards)
4. Go!
A. Eyes on the Road. (Application discourse.)
B. Steer carefully! (among values / stakeholder issues)
C. Try to Stay Together (Working toward consensus using ethical values and theories)
-a Six-step Strategy
-Helping Traffic Obstructions
-Rookie Drivers
-One-Way Drivers
-the Road Menace
-Correcting Someone whos just plain Wrong.
D. Decide! A four-step decision process.
5. Arriving at Destination
A. "Are we there yet?"
B. Accountability
C. My Places: Recent Selections
Moral GPS
REST AREA
Tourist Info Center
Moral Values
Moral Theories
Care
Consequentialist (by results)
Egoism
Utilitarianism
Deontological (by prior principles)
Natural Rights
Justice
Social Contract
Kantian Duty Ethic
Discourse Ethic
Religion: Divine Command
Natural Law
Virtue
Related Principles
Dilemmas and Methods for Resolving Dilemmas
Helping Rookie Drivers (Theories of Moral Development)
Critical Thinking
Creativity
Caf
Glossary
Internet Resources
MY GPS
209
Supplement: Driving Practice and Trip Tips for Congested Areas

A. Tips on Life Issues
B. Tips on Truth Issues
C Tips on Justice Issues
D. Tips on Professional Ethics
START
REST AREA
go to Flow Chart
Moral GPS
210
The GPS
Your Location
Where YOU come from
Eye in the Sky view
Step One:
Acquiring Satellites.
Rules of the Road

Where OTHERS come from
Others are on the Road
Road Hazards/Congested Areas
Caution with Trust
Look Ahead
Your Goals and Ideals
Step Two:
Where to?
MENU
START
Goals and Ideals for ALL

Particular Goals
My GPS
"Go Home" Setting
Care
How Routes Work
Results
Main and Alternate Routes
Step Three:
Choose Route.
Duty
Areas to Avoid
"Side Roads"
Detours
Eyes on the Road!

Steer Carefully!
Step Four:
Go!
Try to Stay Together.
MENU
START
Decide!
Are We There Yet?
Step Five:
Arriving at Destination.
Accountability
My Places: Recent Selections
See menu for

Rest Area, etc.
Moral GPS
211
GPS MENU
GPS START
Moral GPS
by
Len Bowman, Ph.D.
Operator's Manual
Contents
Operating Instructions
Preface
Introduction
Guide to Components of The GPS
Contents of The GPS
Operators Guides
- Guide to Step 1: Acquiring Satellites
- Guide to Step 2: Where to?
- Guide to Step 3: Choose Route
- Guide to Step 4: Go!
- Guide to Step 5: Arriving at Destination
Using Resources of the Rest Area
Driving Practice: Using the Trip Tips.
Sources
Image Credits
About the Author
Moral GPS
212
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents
Operating Instructions
The Moral GPS is designed to provide easy navigation of the complexities of moral thinking.
The core of the Moral GPS is a simple five-step discernment and decision procedure.
Each step is expanded into its components.
Each component linked to
-
My GPS to record and monitor your own thinking;
the Tourist Info Center for more details about whats involved in component;
the Operators Manual for background on the critical theories upon which the
component is based. (These theories are simplified for practical use in the main Moral
GPS.)
The Moral GPS has an onboard glossary. In MS Word, definitions of highlighted terms can
appear as "screen tips" when you place your cursor over the highlighted word to be defined.
Be sure your controls are set to "Show Screen Tips." (go to Tools; Options; in "Show" tab
check "Screen Tips."). [Of course, hyperlinked (highlighted) terms that are not glossary links
will show the link data rather than a definition.]
Navigate by hyperlinks (click* on the linka word underlined in blue or a symbol). Return to
the place you left by clicking on back or return to GPS hyperlink. If there is no back or
return hyperlink, go to Menu, then to the part of the Moral GPS you seek. The Menu is fully
hyperlinked.
Suggestion: begin by glancing at the full five-step procedure to get a sense of the entire road
ahead. (You may also want to glance at the flow chart.) Then work briefly through the
procedure step by step. After that, you will be ready to think carefully through each step and
discern how it relates to your own moral journey (use MyGPS to record and monitor that).
Throughout, use the glossary and screen tip feature to clarify the meaning of key words.
The contents of the Tourist Info Center and Operators Manual serve as more detailed and
more critically grounded supplements that you may need if you are called upon to explain or
justify your moral insights in critical dialog with other thoughtful people.
*control-click in MS Word
Moral GPS
213
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents
Preface
Moral GPS is a procedure for discernment and decision. Principles grounded in traditions of
philosophic ethics support and augment the procedure. Moral GPS is a positive ethic, oriented to goals
and so to the future. It is an ethic for a multicultural world, designed to enable persons familiar with
Western culture to reach across cultural boundaries in constructive dialog.
Unlike typical moral philosophy textbooks, the intent of Moral GPS is primarily practical, not
theoretical. While it considers the strengths and weaknesses of various ethical theories, Moral GPS
also shows how to use these theories to give shape to an individuals moral life and to foster moral
consensusor at least mutual understandingamong persons seeking to put shared ideas into action.
This practical intent means that some theoretical issues (for instance, freedom v. determinism) simply
are not useful for the GPS. It also means that some opposing theories (for instance, utilitarianism and
the Kantian duty ethic) work effectively together as indispensable practical checks on the possible
excesses of each.
Moral GPS is serious applied ethics. While it is not as objectivist as some versions of a moral
compass, neither is it relativist as satiric uses of the term imply.121 In an obviously multicultural
world, Moral GPS provides guidance according to ethical norms that can be applied across different
cultures. Accordingly, Moral GPS draws principally from Jrgen Habermas Discourse Ethics,
augmented with insights from the Ethic of Care.
Moral GPS has been a construction zone for five years, preceded by an ethics map developed for my
Ethics and the Professions class in the Johns Hopkins University School of Professional Studies and
Carey Business School. That was keyed to Prof. David Coopers excellent book, Ethics for
Professionals in a Multicultural World.122
Special thanks to Prof. Christopher Dreisbach of the Johns Hopkins Division of Public Safety
Leadership for his thorough and critical reading of the draft Moral GPS. Thanks to the many students
of the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, and Master of Liberal Arts program, and Odyssey
program for their practical insights and encouragement, particularly Dana Weckesser and James
Monack. Thanks to Martin Austin for suggesting the flow chart. And thanks to Jena for her patience
while I struggled through the construction of this thing.
121
See, for instance, http://www.dotpenn.com/index.php/U.S/Country-To-Install-New-Moral-GPS-System.html (accessed

08 24 2011)
122
Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004
Moral GPS
214
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents
Introduction
Back to GPS
Moral GPS: A Positive Ethic for Our Multicultural World

As an introduction, lets simply examine the terms in the title of the Moral GPS.
Moral GPS. Moral GPS is more than a moral compass. That will just tell you which way is
north.123 Moral GPS will help guide your moral journey, both your life journey in the world with
others and your local trips--particular decisions.
The Moral GPS builds on the time-honored archetype of journey for the moral life.124 Since the moral
life is lived in the same world with others, this is a shared journey on a single Moral Highway. The
healthy moral life is analogous to driving safely on the Moral Highway (just as in medieval times good
people were viatores, people on the road). Moral failures are like crashes that land one in a ditch, off
the road (just as in medieval times, the misguided person was called homo errorpeople wandering
about lost).
Morality, thenat least for the Moral GPSis much more than simply distinguishing between right
and wrong options for particular decisions. Moral action is never isolated from a moral lifean
individual life or the living moral character of an institution or group. This is one feature of the Moral
GPS that distinguishes it from typical textbooks on ethics or moral philosophy.
My little red Toyota Matrix has a portable Garmin c330. (Yes, its not the latest nor the most
sophisticated GPS, but it does the job.) Unlike my Garmin, Moral GPS has to help guide more than
just my vehicle. This has to help guide decisions in which others share.
Like my Garmin, Moral GPS will not do all your driving for you. You have to watch the road, you
have to steeri.e. you have to make the decisions. Note: like my Garmin, Moral GPS is portable, so I
can take it from the car into the Rest Area (an ethical arena for reflection and discussion).
The Moral GPS is a Moral Global positioning system. Its not just a system for personal moral
positioning. You can't "recalibate" the moral world in which you live, as if morality is just a matter of
123
See, for instance Doug Lennick and Fred Kiel, Moral Intelligence: Enhancing Business Performance and Leadership
Success, Wharton School, 2005, and the website www.MoralCompass.com (Accessed 08 24 2011). The focus of this
compass is virtues, and no attention is given to resolving moral dilemmas. By contrast, see Lindsay J. Thompson, The
Moral Compass: Leadership for a Free World (Information Age Publishers, 2009), which offers guidance to moral dialog.
124
The journey metaphor integrates particular decisions into the larger patterns of personal biography and social history.
Traditionally, the journey metaphor has had two principal expressions. In one, life on earth is a pilgrimage of individuals
through an alien land toward their heavenly true home. In the other (the basic metaphor for the Moral GPS), the earth is
the true human home and people together share (and build) its progressive destiny. See Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The
Heart of the Problem, in The Future of Man (Harper, 1964), pp. 272-282. Some ethical theory builds on the metaphor of
game, focusing on processes of decisions apart from the larger moral career of individuals or society. See
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-ethics/#7 (Accessed 08 24 2011). When this latter metaphor is applied to life as a
whole, it implies individualist and adversarial relationships among persons,a sense of society as a non-progressive playing
field or arena, and a trivialized sense of its goal. (Think of the saying, Life is a game. Money is how we keep score [Ted
Turner], or He who dies with the most toys wins.)
Moral GPS
215
personal preference or opinion. The Moral GPS helps you identify your location within that moral
world. It includes a moral compassa firm, universally shared directional frame.125
Yet theres a quasi-magical quality about Moral GPS. Unlike my Garmin, it can guide you along
several routes at once. Further, it can guide your immediate route, but it can also help you to steer the
road itself to make travel easier for others. You see, there are destinations that all persons seek,
whatever their particular diverse goals. As you seek your particular goal, you can also enhance (or
diminish?) the progress of all travelers toward those universal destinations.
Moral GPS is a procedure for moral discernment and decision. It is organized according to the five
steps a person should take in making a sound moral decision within a healthy, shared moral life:
1. Discern your moral location
2. Set your moral direction
(your personal goals and goals you share with all others)126
3. Clarify and evaluate what count as good reasons (values and theories) to
support moral decisions and foster consensus.
4. Decide.
5. Evaluate and accept accountability.
Moral GPS is not organized like a typical textbook in ethics or moral philosophy:
-
the concept of morality

theoretical questions (absolutism, relativism, and the like)
major ethical theories
(perhaps) discussions of controversial moral issues.
As you will see, Moral GPS includes the content of typical ethics textbooks, but it does not remain on
that theoretical level. Some ethics textbooks include practical applications or case studies, but those are
still hypothetical. Moral GPS brings you and your actual moral life into the picture.
Heres an important suggestion: dont try to begin driving with your Moral GPS before you have taken
the time to set it up properly. Read through the entire GPS. Become familiar with how it works and
what it can do for you. Next, personalize the GPS by completing its first five parts, including your
thoughts in My GPS. Then try one or another of the driving practice exercises, preferably with
others who are setting up their Moral GPS.
Our Multicultural World. The twenty-first century world is multicultural. Thats a simple fact. For
that matter, the world has always been multicultural. Its just that now nearly everyone recognizes that
fact. The worlds multicultural character cant be ignored. Its become obvious due to advances in
transportation, communication, and economic development of formerly third world nations. Perhaps
its also due to the wisdom of hindsight after the twentieth centurys catastrophic experiments with
imperialistic monoculturalism.
What is not so obvious is how people are to respond to the fact of being multicultural, particularly in
regard to ethics. Some have concluded that since moral values differ from culture to culture, there is no
basis for someone in one culture to make a moral claim or judgment on someone of another culture.
This is called cultural relativism, and you will find that it can lead to chaos on the Moral Highway
125
"Moral compass" is sometimes interpreted to mean a clear set of norms by which to judge things (and people) as wrong.
That's NOT a compass: that's a metal detector or an electric fence (moral boundary). A compass points a positive direction.
126
The Moral GPS structure reflects the influence of the management by objectives movement in business and the
outcomes assessment movement in higher education. See below, the discussion of evaluation by results.
Moral GPS
216
(see side roads). Others have insisted on the objective rightness of their own moral norms, even on
their absolute validity, over against other cultures. This stand is dangerous for the Moral Highway, for
it risks skidding into moral bigotry.
There simply is no ethical system or theory that provides moral norms that can fairly be applied
across all cultures. There is only one avenue to reach cross-cultural moral judgments: moral dialog.
The Moral GPS recognizes strong, universal moral claims in the practical presuppositions of moral
dialog, that is, the conditions that are necessary to make such dialog possible. Those universal claims
are the rules of the road in the Moral GPS. They boil down to one basic norm: mutual respect for the
moral autonomy of all persons127. Without that, moral dialog is impossible.
The challenge is to develop ways of communication that are adequate to a multicultural world. The
Moral GPS offers a model that may help toward meeting that challenge. The Moral GPS is designed to
enable persons familiar with Western culture to reach across cultural boundaries in constructive dialog.
It is based on principles (the rules of the road) that encourage, rather than foreclose, intercultural
communication.
Ideally, a moral GPS should include insight into all of the worlds moral systems. Unfortunately, that
isnt possible for a small portable device like this Moral GPS. That is just as well, though, for wouldnt
such a comprehensive insight suggest that one person could be in the position to make infallible moral
judgments for everyone? That is a frightening thought, particularly since the resulting social design
would likely produce smooth travel on the Moral Highway, but robotic travel without moral
autonomy.128 Again, for the Moral GPS there is only one avenue to reach cross-cultural moral
judgments: moral dialog.
Ethic. Theres a distinction between morality and ethics. A person who lives in accord with sound
values can be called moral. But another dimension is needed for a person to be called ethical
self-critical reflection and accountability to others.129 Morality and ethics, in this sense, are integrally
relatedthey are distinct but not separate. You will notice the terms moral and ethical used
throughout the Moral GPS in ways that seem almost interchangeable. Keep in mind that the term
moral ordinarily emphasizes actual behavior, while the term ethical ordinarily emphasizes
thoughtful reflection on behavior.
The Moral GPS is an ethic, designed to help you reflect critically on moral issues. Anybody can have
opinions on moral issues. In order to be ethical, you must take responsibility for providing good
reasons for your stand that make sense to other people. Otherwise your opinions can pose a danger
rather than a help on the Moral Highway.
That means, first, that you must respect the moral autonomy of other persons. Others have a right to
hear such good reasons from you, especially if your stand directly affects them. You have an obligation
to consider carefully the perspectives of others. That respect for others is reflected in the "rules of the
road" in the Moral GPS
A simpler expression of this norm could be, Love your neighbor as yourself.
Think of B. F. Skinners Walden Two (Hackett, 1976), based on his denial of personal freedom. See critiques of Walden
Two, particularly Noam Chomsky, The Case Against B.F. Skinner, The New York Review of Books, December 30, 1971,
and Harvey L Gamble, Jr., "Walden Two, Postmodern Utopia, and the Problems of Power, Choice, and the Rule of Law".
Texas Studies in Literature and Language, 41(1), 1999. (Accessed 08 24 2011)
129
You may have noticed that moral and ethical are wildcard words, changing meanings depending on the context.
Habermas, for instance, links ethical to societal or cultural norms while moral refers to a less constricted personal
judgment (Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, 183). In the Moral GPS, ethical implies that a decision is
explicitly based in good reasons that are [potentially] understandable across cultures.
127
128
Moral GPS
217
Ethics demands self-critical reflection. It requires a certain detachment from your moral opinions. It
requires taking a logical step back from your opinion to your reasons for that opinionreasons which
ought to make sense to others, and which are available for critical evaluation and possible revision.130
Moral GPS calls on you to take that "eye in the sky" detached view, and as well to recognize the limits
of your particular background in your "mirror." Ethical thinking also reminds you never to lose sight of
"eye in the sky" issues and values while wrestling with particular dilemmas and decisions.
Ethical thinking can serve as a form of nonviolent conflict resolution, ensuring safe travel together on
the Moral Highway. You can avoid a collision of opposing moral opinions. All you have to do is take
that logical step back from a stand to the reasons for the stand. Then through a detached, critical
evaluation of reasons, you may be able to build a basis for mutual understanding, perhaps even
consensus.
Your vehicle on the Moral Highway is language. Moral GPS looks at moral language as speech acts of
persons in community, speech acts oriented toward practical action. In Moral GPS, moral claims are
not isolated propositions to be logically analyzed, even if they happen to be in written ("text") form.
They are events of dialog or discourse in the context of human relationships that are oriented toward
action, and you cannot appropriately understand them apart from that context.131
It is that very context that provides a set of ethical norms that can transcend the differences between
cultures without coercion. The essential context of ethics is human relationships that are oriented
toward action. What conditions are necessary for those relationships to exist, let alone flourish? Those
conditions can be translated into rules of the road for the Moral Highway. The foundation for those
rules is discussed later in the Operators Manual.
Positive. The term positive has many meanings. Here the term is used as the contrary of negative.
A standard distinction is made between negative norms (Thou shalt not) and positive norms (Do
this). Negative norms define moral boundaries, obliging you to refrain from action that would violate
the norms. For instance, the right of free speech obliges government to refrain from interfering with
a persons exercise of that right (police must not arrest you for expressing your opinion). On the Moral
Highway, negative norms are analogous to guardrails. They help you avoid driving off the road into
the ditch. Otherwise they are of no help at all in discerning where you should be going.
Positive norms are moral values or principles that oblige you to take direct action in order to realize
them. For instance, the norm all citizens must be educated obliges a society to take direct action to
provide schooling for everyone. Pay your taxes obliges you to take direct action to do so, or you may
receive a polite letter from a certain government agency.A positive norm, like a goal, gives you a
direction to go and a challenge to figure out how to get there.
The Moral GPS is positive in an even larger sense, for it places particular goals within the larger
context of the whole of life, that shared journey on the Moral Highway. That sets the Moral GPS apart
from the typical ethics or moral philosophy work, and it reveals a kinship with religious approaches to
morality, but without churchy overtones or faith-based assumptions. The Moral GPS asks you to set
a direction for your life to go, and poses the challenge of how to get there.132
This step back is called decentering by moral development theorists. See the Tourist Info Center on moral
development.
131
The Moral GPS therefore passes over much of Analytic Ethics as less useful for traveling on the Moral Highway.
132
The golden rule is such a positive norm. It is interesting that the New Testament speaks of that norm as inclusive of all
negative norms. See Matthew 7:12. Augustine of Hippo present the positive norm love as the only norm needed: "Love,
and do what you will" (Dilige et quod vis fac) Sermon on 1 John 7, 8.
130
Moral GPS
218
Do not underestimate that challenge. This positive ethic calls you to action and moves you into an
undetermined future. Therefore it propels you into the unknown and unknowable. It demands effort
and entails risk. This positive ethic demands courage. (In a purely negative ethic, by contrast, you
would echo the hopeless derelict in Samuel Becketts Waiting for Godot: Dont lets do anything. Its
safer.133)
Crucial to this positive ethic is your attitude toward the future, especially once you have the good sense
to recognize that the future is unknown and unknowable. You may be an optimist, like Dickens Mr.
Micawber always thinking that something will turn up.134 Optimism, though, isnt a good
preparation for confronting obstructions and frustrations. (Moreover, its oppositepessimismmakes
just as much sense as an attitude toward the future.) Or you may have definite expectations, a clear
five-year plan with tangible objectives. Expectations, though, are not actual facts. The actual future
may bring disappointments. What do you do then? Demand that reality conform to your expectations?
Thats a crash risk on the Moral Highway.
There is an attitude toward the future that will work for a positive ethic. It is called hope. Hope is
trust in the future that does not ignore risks and dangers (unlike optimism) and does not make specific
demands (unlike expectation). It affirms the future in a way that transcends particular expectations.135
Moral GPS could therefore be called a hopeful ethic, for hope is a constant factor in this discernment
and decision process, right from the start.
Starting with hope means starting with an overall vision or direction, but recognizing that as an ideal
("should"). That "should" is an ideal based upon values that can claim universal validity, but without
depending on a particular cultural, religious or philosophical conviction. Estimating your "present
location" implies recognizing limits that are less than ideal. Then obligation ("ought") follows, based
upon what is possible, a) for you and those who share your hope, and b) to convince others to do, in
order to move actual conditions closer to the universal "should."
The basic content of hope (what you might hope for) might be called love, if you can filter out all the
romantic distortions of that word. Love, most basically, affirms other personsall other persons--in
mutual relationships. On the Moral Highway, that means a fundamental respect and care for all other
persons as morally autonomous agents. That provides a hopeful goal: foster such love. Foster mutual
respect and care for moral autonomy. Reaching toward that goal means fostering the kind of
communication and sharing that builds such love. What conditions foster such sharing? Those
conditions correspond closely to the necessary conditions for moral discoursethe "rules of the road"
in the Moral GPS. What conditions frustrate human sharing? Conditions that oppress and exclude
people from human sharing present a moral challenge to travelers on the Highway. Love requires life,
freedom of choice and thought, basic economic security, work and leisure, education and culture
values included in the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights. For the Moral GPS,
however, those values are grounded not in a theory of individual rights but as necessary conditions for
human community and for effective human cooperation. Such considerations frame a hopeful
destination for the Moral Highway as a whole.
133
Estragon in Act I
Charles Dickens, David Copperfield. London, 1850
135
See Leonard Bowman, Hope Against Hope: Toward Hope Beyond Hope (iUniverse, 2001).
134
Moral GPS
219
Actual moral obligation is limited, of course, to what you can do. Once that hopeful destination is
programmed into your Moral GPS, though, you are more likely to do what you can toward that
ideal.136 Thats why the Moral GPS is a positive ethic in the best sense of the word.
Obviously, the Moral GPS is not positive as in Im positive that Im right. Its very important on
the Moral Highway to make room for others, and that means realizing that another may have the right
of wayin other words, I could be wrong. 137
A caution is necessary here. An important element in the moral point of view is that you are selfcritical, always ready to subject your own assumptions to question. Some people may be
uncomfortable with that, for they may feel a need to possess moral certainty or security. That need is
actually a form of moral fear, obstructing the way toward moral maturity.138 The Moral GPS is
grounded in something deeper than certainty; it is based in hope.
A positive ethic is not, therefore, a programme or an ideology. That kind of thing may even be a
challenge to moral integrity, for it risks riding roughshod over others' freedom. Rather, a positive ethic
(like cautious driving) is a constant alertness and tuning, committed to foster certain values wherever
they emerge and to inhibit things that may violate or weaken those valueswhere and when you can.
Hence a positive ethic is not so much a "principle" or "taking a stand" as it is a point of view, a sense
of direction, a habitual way of relating to other persons and situations. It is less like "principle" and
more like "integrity."
A positive ethic is therefore paradoxical, for it is not aggressive but responsive. Its positive virtues
amount to the capacity to respond to others as the unique persons that they are. Its positive energy may
be like that of the sun toward a flowerdrawing forth and enhancing the flowers own energy rather
than exerting force against it.
Unfortunately, the Moral GPS is not positive in the sense of always agreeable, beneficial, or without
conflict. The Moral Highway does not always make for smooth and safe travel. There are conflicts and
there are risks of crash or collision. There are even some who try to twist the entire Moral Highway
toward a narrow goal of their own, and so try to force anyone who disagrees off the road. The Moral
GPS calls such a person a Road Menace, a threat to the moral autonomy of others. The worst case of
such an attitude is aggressive war, where some people kill others to attain their limited goals. A moral
person is then called upon to resist, and such resistance can be tragic. The Moral Highway is not a
pleasant, scenic route. Traveling the Moral Highway is a serious challenge. As a positive ethic, the
Moral GPS can help you face that challenge.
Thats what Moral GPS: A Positive Ethic for Our Multicultural World is about.
A word on decision-making: you will notice that the Moral GPS considers dialog toward consensus as
the norm for good decisions, especially in a multicultural world. This too is understood as a positive
ideal, and often decisions must be made in other ways. See the Operators Manual on decision (Go!)
regarding this issue.
Klaus Gnther speaks of a teleological structure to ethical norms, prescribing conditions that are to be striven for even
though their complete attainment is beyond present possibilities. The Sense of Appropriateness: Application Discourses in
Morality and Law (State University of New York Press, 1993), p. 213.
137
Huston Smith recommended this koan of wisdom to participants in his seminar, The Great Chain of Being, Pacific
School of Religion, summer 1985. It serves as a balancing leitmotif in the Moral GPS.
138
The Moral GPS here touches on a process that appears across the spectrum of world religions: I must set aside the self
(my little me) in order to attain spiritual enlightenment or faith. For instance, the New Testament teaches, Those who try
to make their life secure will lose it, but those who lose their life will keep it (Luke 17:33, NRSV), and I live, no more I;
lives in me Christ (Galatians 2:20, from the Greek).
136
Moral GPS
220
Are you ready? Try it. Go to The GPS itself and follow the way it leads. You can always refer back to
the Operators Manual or the Tourist Info Center for guidance about steps along the way.
Enjoy.
Moral GPS
221
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents
Operator's Guides to Components of The GPS

Contents of The GPS
I. Acquiring Satellites: "Where are we?" (guide)
A. Eye in the Sky
1. Location: You are here.
2. Check the Mirror: Where are YOU coming from?
5. Drive with Confidence: Caution with Trust.
B. Other Drivers: Where are others coming from?
Moral Dilemmas, Controversies, and Dangerous Intersections.
II. Where to? (guide)
A. Look Ahead
D. Particular Goals
III. Choose Route (guide)
B. Main Routes and their Alternate Routes (major moral values and theories)
-Care
-Results: egoism and utilitarianism.
-Duty (Natural Rights and Kantian Duty Ethic)
-Side Roads: Absolutism, Relativism, Subjectivism.
C. Areas to Avoid (negative norms / moral boundaries)
D. Detours (Ways to get around road hazards)
IV. Go! (guide)
C. Try to Stay Together (Working toward consensus)
D. Decide!
V. Arriving at Destination (guide)
B. Accountability
Using Resources of the REST AREA (guide)
Tourist Info Center
Cafe
Part II. Supplement: Driving Practice and Trip Tips (guide)
Life issues
Truth issues
Justice issues
Professional ethics
Flow Chart
Moral GPS
222
Operators Guides
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents
Guide to Step 1: Acquiring Satellites

Back to GPS
I. Acquiring Satellites: "Where are we?"

A. Eye in the Sky
Return to GPS
A. Eye in the Sky

Guide to Step 1
The Moral GPS builds on a metaphor. Responsible moral living is like responsible driving on a
highway. Just as a GPS can be a huge help in finding your way through an urban labyrinth toward your
destination, Moral GPS can help you work your way through complex moral decisions.
Your car GPS works thanks to its link to satellites overhead, an eye in the sky that track your
location as you move. While you focus on the immediate traffic conditions around you, your GPS
gives you a detached picture of where you are, what roads are around you, and where you need to go
next in order to reach your destination. Without that detached, eye in the sky perspective, its easy to
get lost.
Moral decisions are not isolated events. You make such decisions along the way of your whole lifes
journey, and that journey is a lot like a road. Your personal lifes journey is not isolated either. You
live in a world linked with others, in fact with everyone else, each one also traveling a life journey.
That means the road you travel is a shared road. Well call it the Moral Highway. Every moral
decision is made in the context of your own life journey and of the larger moral journey shared by
everyone.
Like the satellite view that your cars GPS gives you, the Moral GPS can provide a detached, eye in
the sky perspective that helps you spot your moral location along the Moral Highway. It is vitally
Moral GPS
223
important for you to gain such a perspective. (This perspective is often called the Moral Point of
View. 139 See critical thinking in the Rest Areas Tourist Information Center.)
Some people are confident that they can find their way just fine with the good sense and a few moral
rules that theyve learned from childhood. Such a person may be right, and he might get along well
until he comes up against a complex moral issue or has to deal with people from different moral
cultures. (A complex moral issue is one that is controversial and that involves many people with
differing moral perspectives on the issue.) What then? A person clinging rigidly to such a personal
moral code is like someone driving straight on when others are headed right across his path. Look out!
Brace for a collision!
The Moral GPS can help you step back from your personal moral code (by no means abandoning it)
and see it in relation to other possible perspectives, just like your cars GPS shows your cars location
in relation to all the other roads around you. That can help you understand others, see where they are
coming from and where they want to go. It can help you develop your own moral views, too, by
expanding your moral vision and so enriching your character. Instead of being stuck with a selfcentered moral perspective, your perspective can center on the entire Moral Highway.
So the eye in the sky gives you a moral point of view no longer limited to your self, but is
independent of you, unbiased and impartial, giving you insight into what is important for all people.
By so enlarging your moral vision, the eye in the sky can foster your moral maturing and help you
attain full moral autonomy. For further insight into that process of maturing, see the Rest Area
discussion of Helping Rookie Drivers.
Thats the advantage of the eye in the sky thats built into your Moral GPS.
Be careful, though. The eye in the sky poses a risk as well. Dont let its detached perspective lead
you to take your eyes off the road in front of you. Traditional Western ethics has been criticized as an
aggressive imperial gaze of detached reason that has wreaked havoc on real people in real
circumstances.140 Thats why the Moral GPS calls on you to be aware of your own particular location
and demands (with a bright yellow warning!) that you keep your eyes on particular circumstances.
Generalized moral values and abstract ethical theories do NOT determine decisions. People do. True,
you should use and apply values and theories to guide your decisions. You can even use values and
theories as a way to appeal to the reason and freedom of other peoplebut never as a bludgeon to
judge or coerce another. The eye in the sky must always be held together with keep your eyes on
the road.
Return to GPS

Guide to Step 1
You need the eye in the sky, but at the same time you need to keep your eyes on the road right in
front of you. You need both perspectives. Either one without the other is risky, even dangerous.
Your particular location

My Garmin c330 uses a little red triangle to tell me you are here. That lets me know where I am in
relation to the roads immediately around me, and it even points in the direction I am headed. Theres
another thing, a very important thing, that your you are here pointer lets you know. You are here,
and there is elsewhere. Your location is particular, not universal. Your place is partial, not total. If you
are here, others are elsewhere. Yet you all share the same Moral Highway.
139
Baier, K., The Moral Point of View: A Rational Basis for Ethics. Cornell University Press, 1965
Roger S. Gottlieb, Ethics and Trauma: Levinas, Feminism, and Deep Ecology. Cross Currents 44:2 (Summer 1994)
p222.
140
Moral GPS
224
It's easy to make a mistake at this point. You may be tempted to identify with your conscious thinking
rather than with your bodily existence. That lets you drift away from your particular place, dreamlike,
and imagine an ideal self that escapes the limits and flaws of your real self. A crucial part of facing the
fact that you are here is accepting your embodied self, warts and all as the saying goes, with all
your limits and vulnerability.141 You cannot be other than your self. At the same time, it's possible to
transcend your limits, principally in your relationships with other persons. That's why your being in the
world with others is something to be grateful for. See the Operator's Manual notes on Youre Not the
Only One on the Road.
There is a third thing that the you are here pointer lets you know. You are here, and that means you
are not nowhere. You have to keep control of your vehicle where you are. You cannot avoid
responsibility in relation to the historical circumstances of your own time. You may want to ask
yourself, where am I in relation to the critical ethical issues of my time? Am I aware of them? Am I
taking any responsibility for them? What responsibilities do I have to the victims of injustice or
ecological spoilage perpetrated in my country? my culture? by me?142 Such questions are built into the
later steps in setting up the Moral GPS.
Return to GPS
You are in the World

Guide to Step 1
Mommy. Child development occurs largely through interaction with parental figures. Cases of feral
children dramatically support this assumption. Such children separated from human contact in early
infancy and raised by nonhuman animals imitate the behavior of the animals and ordinarily do not
develop basic human capacities such as language, even when returned to a human environment. 143
While it is generally true that a child comes into the world owing Mommy, sometimes parents fail in
their obligation to hand on a livable world to those who come after them, for instance victims of fetal
alcohol syndrome. Such exceptions are tragic. The Moral GPS affirms the obligation to do what is
possible to fix such breakdowns as part of the goals for all setting.
Language. The Moral GPS is not espousing the idea of a universal language or even universal
grammar. Common patterns of thinking, expression, and conversation are more basic and simpler than
that. All peoples use some kind of language to communicate. All language is in some way rooted in
bodily experience of being in the world, and more complex or abstract expressions ordinarily build on
such elemental experience. A communitys definition and management of its life-world144 is through
language.
It is possible (within limits) to translate from one language to another and so enable communication
between different language communities. There is no claim here of a common language. Rather, the
way language works in human communities has many common patterns.
Owing. The owing relationship with other persons is, for the Moral GPS, the root of moral
obligation. Etymology tells the tale: the word Obligation derives from the Latin ligare, which means
to tie. To be a human person in the world means to be linked, bound or tied to others. Owing,
This concern is based on insights of Emmanuel Levinas' distinction of the I of consciousness from the self of
embodiment. See the Levinas article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/
(Accessed 08 24 2011)
142
Gottlieb (q.v.) notes how the impact of the Holocaust on Emmanuel Levinas caused him to raise such questions very
seriously.
143
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child (Accessed 08 24 2011)
144
See Jrgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.
William Rehg. (MIT Press, 1996), p. 22.
141
Moral GPS
225
ought, or moral obligation is the demand that a valid moral claim places upon a person to act in
accord with that claim, a claim made by others upon a person. Such obligation, therefore, arises within
interpersonal relationships, though those ties may extend well beyond face-to-face relationships to
embrace the whole of humanity. To consider obligation a matter of abstract duty is at best a derived
sense of the word, and it may seriously distort our sense of moral obligation into something impersonal
and abstract.145
Moral common world. This is not a moral common ground of generalized positive values and
negative norms that you can find in virtually all cultures. Such a least common denominator
approach produces concepts so thin that they are virtually useless, since the real moral life of persons is
in the thick of particular details and not in thin generalities.146 Rather, our moral common world is a
sufficient common humanity (human conditions and human dispositions) and shared living on the
earth to make communication and empathy possible across all the the particular differences. In recent
years it has become more obvious that everyone on the globe is connected with everyone else, for good
or ill.147 (The relationship of common to particular here is like that described above with languages.)
The Moral GPS is concerned with real people in dialog toward consensus on action, rather than with
generalities.
The moral common world is the foundation of the shared Moral Highway on which we all travel. One
crucial aspect of this universal connectedness has to do with the quest for truth and good. Crucial to
Habermas Discourse Ethics is validation through "cooperative search for truth on the part of a
potentially unlimited communication community."148 It is this limitlessness that requires participants to
shed conventional preconceptions and unquestioned norms and to subject ALL norms to question and
validation.
Refusal to submit norms to critical evaluation means turning one's back on the "unlimited" community
and trying to pretend that one can remain embedded in one's circumscribed life-world. Then
disagreement becomes a matter of conflict, and emotions like "defending the [moral] homeland"
poison the possibility of moral consensus. The Road Menace becomes a major threat on the Moral
Highway.
Nevertheless, our moral common world does provide a set of moral norms that transcend cultural
boundaries: the conditions that are necessary for people to be able to communicate toward effective
action. The Moral GPS distills those into the rules of the road outlined in the third part of this first
step.
Road Menace. In this section you meet the Road Menace for the first time. Unfortunately, this a
recurring threat on the Moral Highway. A Road Menace is a person who does not accept moral
responsibility (crash-prone) or who disregards the moral autonomy of other persons.
For example, the unethical egoist fails to accept moral responsibility. Moral responsibility is a person's
relationship with other persons that
a) takes others' interests into account in making decisions,
b) accepts others' trust to respect moral autonomy,
c) responds constructively to moral claims, and
d) holds oneself accountable to provide good reasons to others for one's choices.
145
See Fiona Robinson,Globalizing Care: Ethics, Feminist Theory, and International Relations (Westview Press, 1999), p.
8.
146
See Kwame Anthony Appiah, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (Norton, 2006), pp.45-67.
See Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalization (Yale University Press, 2002).
148
Jrgen Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber
Nicholson (MIT Press, 1990), p. 163.
147
Moral GPS
226
The unethical egoist seeks his own self-interest without regard for others, and he may even directly
violate others moral autonomy by attempting to exploit them through deception or coercion. This
Road Menace is then very likely to violate moral norms and values.
The moral bigot is a Road Menace who disregards the moral autonomy of other persons by attempting
to impose his norms and values on others, overriding or ignoring their moral perspectives. Moral
bigotry is a common and serious temptation in a time of social transition, particularly as awareness
grows that our moral common world is a multicultural world. One tactic of this kind of Road Menace
is deliberately to exclude himself from moral dialog and then to obstruct action. In effect, this my way
or no way behavior seeks to force those with different moral views off the Moral Highway or to stall
all traffic on the Highwaybut risks skidding into a ditch and crashing.149
The Moral Bigot may be motivated by moral fear. It is difficult to affirm a moral point of view in a
world teeming with varied and opposing moral assumptions. One response to the multicultural moral
world is subjectivism, the claim that all moral values are internal attitudes of particular persons and
have no objective basis that can validly oblige others to observe that norm. That stance, of course,
amounts to chaos on the Moral Highway. No wonder some react with fear. One expression of this fear
is to affirm a particular set of norms and values as if they are universal, thereby denying validity to any
norms and values that differ from this particular set. (This is an especially serious crash risk for the
Natural Law theory.) On the Moral Highway, this attitude is the equivalent of trying to bully other
people off the road. Thats why the Moral Bigot is a Road Menace.
A Road Menace will obstruct efforts to reach mutual understanding and possible consensus, and he is
likely to cause a collision. Further, the behavior of a Road Menace undercuts the mutual trust on which
the Moral Highway depends and so he is a threat to all moral dialog. See the Tourist Information
Center for tips on managing the Road Menace.
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents

Return to GPS
Identity
Guide to Step 1
Beneath the question of your personal location on the moral map is the deeper question of personal
identity. What do you mean when you say I? How do you define your individual self? There is a
millenia-long philosophic discussion of this deeper question.150
Fortunately, you dont need to know the philosophy of identity for the Moral Highway any more than
you need to know theories of statistical thermodynamics to operate an automobile. But perhaps you
should be aware of two different directions people and groups take in defining their identities, one
negative and the other positive. Your approach to driving the Moral Highway can be seriously affected
by which of these directions you take.
The negative approach to defining my identity stresses things that make me different from others. I am
not, for instance, female; not an ethnic minority, not . . . and the list goes on. Two unfortunate things
result from taking this direction. First, what sets me apart from others (what I am/have and others do
not) may turn out in the end to be a set of things that are really rather trivial. Second, I may be tempted
149
Some people interpret the tactics of Republican congresspeople in the 2009-2010 health care reform process as this kind
of moral bigotry. (This interpretation rests on the assumption that the Republicans did exclude themselves rather than being
excluded.)
150
See, for instance, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal (Accessed
08 24 2011)
Moral GPS
227
to consider what I am not inferior, and so look down on, for instance, women and ethnic minorities.
My sense of self can be impoverished and my self-affirmation can become strident and defensive. As
an individual I become more isolated. A group that takes this direction becomes more sectarian.
The positive approach to defining my identity stresses what makes me most myself, my true-est self,
so to speak. Most important then are my relationships with my family, my friends and my colleagues.
Also important are major events in my life and how they have affected me illnesses, loves, losses,
jobs and the like. The interesting thing here is that these things make me very much like others.
However unique my experience of an illness, for instance, it is still very much like another persons.
However personally wonderful my wedding day, it is still very much like another persons. By taking
this direction in defining my personal identity, I discover that my self-affirmation enhances my ties
with others and even with all of humankind. A group taking this direction becomes more inclusive.
You will notice that the Moral GPS encourages you in the positive direction.
Return to GPS
Story (Narrative Ethics)

Guide to Step 1
A recent discussion among bioethicists has given prominence to personal stories in guiding patient care
decisions.151 Such a narrative approach gives proper importance to the distinctive characteristics of
each patient (a key concern in the Ethics of Care).
Narrative Ethics contrasts with Principlism, an approach that focuses on abstract ethical values and
theories, applying them in almost deductive fashion to particular patients. At its worst, Principlism can
see a patient simply as a case of type X rather than the unique person she is. Proponents of Narrative
Ethics object to such reducing of patient stories to instances of the abstract. Stories cannot legitimately
be so reduced, for often personal stories affirm values that are not consistent with such principles, nor
are different personal stories likely to be ethically consistent with each other.
Some contend that Narrative Ethics not only contrasts with Principlism but is essentially opposed.
These hold that general principles are best replaced with model stories, paradigm cases, that can
serve to guide decisions (in a way almost like precedents in our common law legal system).
Unfortunately, as with every ethical approach, both Narrative Ethics and Principlism have their own
crash risks. With its stress on the uniqueness of each individual story, Narrative Ethics skids toward
relativism, diminishing its usefulness on the Moral Highway. In its effort to apply general principles to
unique individuals, Principlism risks taking its eyes from the road and skids toward absolutism.
Rather than seeing these approaches as opposed, some see them as complementary,152 in effect viewing
these as alternate routes. As with most opposing approaches, an either-or logic diminishes our
ability to think and act effectively; a both-and logic works better.
Since Moral GPS is primarily a discernment procedure, it adapts the narrative approach to a wider
ethical map than is found in most writers on the subject. The stories surrounding particular decisions
occur within the larger life stories of the persons facing those decisions, and those life stories occur
within the larger stories of communities and of all humanity. For that reason, Moral GPS encourages
travelers on the Moral Highway to reflect on their life stories and to enrich their awareness through
good literature (stories illuminating human character). Such literature can enhance a persons capacity
for self-knowledge and for empathy.
151
For an excellent overview of narrative approaches in bioethics, see Hilde Lindemann Nelson, ed., Stories and their
Limits: Narrative Approaches to Bioethics (Routledge, 1997)
152
J. McCarthy, Principlism or narrative ethics: must we choose between them? Medical Humanities.2003; 29: 65-71. See
also James Childress, Narratives Versus Norms: A Misplaced Debate in Bioethics, in Nelson, 252-70.
Moral GPS
228
GPS MENU
GPS START

a. Language: Communicative Action
b. The Rules of the Road
c. Validity and Justification
d. Common Core of Morality
e. Should and Ought.
Contents
Return to GPS
Guide to Step 1
Just as my Garmin GPS has a built-in compass to keep its objective orientation, so the Moral GPS is
guided by a moral universal or common core of morality153 the structure of essential
relationships that form any human community, the basis for the rules of the road in the Moral GPS.
Such relationships are established and maintained primarily through language. It is not just any use of
language that fosters social integration. Of primary importance is language used to coordinate the
interests of many people so that they can agree upon a common course of action. Jrgen Habermas
calls this use of language communicative action.154
Communicative action works according to implicit rules that ensure that a course of action is genuinely
cooperative. (Coercion invalidates a course of action, for coercion undermines those essential
relationships that form a community.) These rules govern the process of communication, but they also
provide a set of moral norms applicable to any human community: a common core of morality.
a. Language: Communicative Action
return to Language
People commonly use language in two very different ways. One refers to things that can be found in
the external world. I say to you, there is ice on the road. You can check my assertion by observing
the dark patches on the road and determining whether it is ice or something else. You can even send
someone else out to check, or you could install instruments that measure moisture and temperature and
so verifyor falsifymy statement. This way of using language can be tested empirically, and much
of the philosophic discipline of epistemology has to do with such testing.
The other way of using language is more complex. I might say to you, We shouldnt travel today
because the roads are icy. You might respond, But we have to be in Baltimore tonight. Now the
only thing in the external world is the factor notof ice. My words revealed something elsemy
fear that the risk of travel is too high, and my regard for you as important for my judgment about what
we should do.
Your response could mean one of two very different things. Lets say that you are absolutely
determined to get to Baltimore tonight, and so your aim is to succeed in winning me over to your side.
You might even falsify the risk and try to coerce me, saying something like Im not afraid of a little
ice on the road; why are you so chicken? Habermas calls this strategic action, aimed at success
even through coercive means.155 At this point the Moral GPS would urge you toward communicative
action (seeking cooperative agreement without coercion) and warn you away from strategic action, for
that can turn you into a Road Menace.
The situation is very different if your response intended to balance my fear with a concern of your
own, and expressed your regard for me as important for your judgment. Then we are both seeking to
The phrase is used by Thomas McCarthy in his Introduction to Habermas Moral Consciousness and Communicative
Action (MIT Press, 1990), p. xi.
154
Jrgen Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (MIT Press, 1990), 24-26.
155
Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, pp 133-34.
153
Moral GPS
229
understand each others concerns so we can come to an agreement about whether it is worth the risk to
travel to Baltimore by tonight. This will not be some sort of compromise, which we reach by a giveand-take negotiation.156 Rather, we aim to be together in this decision. There will be no winner and
no loser, because we will both equally own our decision. This is communicative action.
Our conversation is likely to touch on the reasons each of us has for our concerns. We each argue our
position, not to coerce but to provide good reasons that may be convincing and so bring us to
agreement. Underlying our conversation is our mutual respect for one anothers moral autonomy,
which is expressed by each of us honestly expressing our minds and appealing to the reason and
freedom of the other.
Do we understand each other, then? you might ask. That is, Have I correctly interpreted your
concerns and reasons? Have you correctly interpreted mine? Yes, I say. You nod. We are ready to
act. We might even shake hands on it, affirming not only that weve settled on a course of action but
also that weve re-grounded ourselves in our personal relationship.
Notice that we have verified our judgment in a way very different from the impersonal, empirical
check on whether in fact there is ice on the roads. We both have to be involved as participants in order
to get the validity of our judgment.157 While our judgment cannot be impersonal, it must indeed be
impartial if it is to be valid. See below. (By the way, this method of verification is very different from
an empirical check on statements of fact. It is rather a matter of correct or appropriate interpretation of
one anothers words. The appropriate philosophic discipline involved is not epistemology but
hermeneutics.)
b. The Rules of the Road
return to Language
According to Habermas, people who seriously seek mutual understanding through communication
implicity accept certain conditions that make such communication possible. Those conditions can
serve as rules.158 These rules ensure that all who have a stake in an issue may take part, freely and
equally, in cooperative search for truth, where nothing coerces anyone except the force of the better
argument.159 Making those implicit rules explicit is not a simple task. Habermas refers to three levels
of rules:160
1. Be logical in communication.
1.1 Be consistent: No speaker may contradict himself.
1.2 If you say something about one object, you must affirm the same thing of all objects of the
same type.
1.3 Dont twist words. Different speakers may not use the same expression with different
meanings.
2. Be honest and reasonable.
2.1. Say what you mean. Every speaker may assert only what he really believes.
2.2. No red herrings. A person who disputes a proposition or norm not under discussion must
provide a reason for wanting to do so.
3. Be fair.
156
Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, p. 71.

Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, pp. 27, 50.
158
In Habermas (translated) words, anyone who seriously undertakes to participate in argumentation implicity accepts by
that very undertaking general presuppositions that have a normative content. Moral Consciousness and Communicative
Action, pp. 197-98.
159
Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action,p. 198.
160
Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, pp. 87-89.
157
Moral GPS
230
3.1 Dont exclude people. Every subject with the competence to speak and act is allowed to take
part in a discourse.
3.2. Dont exclude issues.
3.2a. Everyone is allowed to question any assertion whatever.
3.2b. Everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever into the discourse.
3.2c. Everyone is allowed to express his attitudes, desires and needs.
3.3. No coercion. No speaker may be prevented, by internal or external coercion, from
exercising his rights as laid down in 3.1 and 3.2.
One additional rule arises simply because sometimes people change their minds. For instance, a
persons perspective may change as that person matures morally (the rookie driver). In the context of
moral development, Habermas affirms that such a person must be able to explain whether and in what
way the moral judgments he had considered right at the previous stage [of moral development] were
wrong.161 In other words, signal your turns.
These rules are not mere conventions of etiquette. They are the pragmatic presuppositions of
communicative action, the necessary conditions for the kind of communication which is most essential
for establishing and integrating a human community. Observing these rules ensures that everyone
respects the moral autonomy and interests of each individual person, and that each person forms his or
her moral judgment in relation to what is acceptable to all.162
The Rules of the Road in the Moral GPS are a simplification and adaptation of these implicit
presuppositions of communicative action.
c. Validity and Justification
return to Language
The whole point of the rules is to ensure that a course of action is genuinely cooperative, so that all
parties take ownership and accountability for the action. Our judgment is then valid and, to all
concerned, justified.
But the rules remain implicit. Ordinarily people seeking to understand each other do not whip out a
checklist of the rules as they proceed in their dialog. In fact, most of the time our communication will
be imperfect. Resulting actions are still fully cooperative, provided all parties accept human
imperfection and affirm the actions as reasonable. But it is a different story if obvious violations of
these rules occur. That would call into question the validity of the action and undermine the
relationships among the people involved.163
We never made it to Baltimore. We finally returned home, bruised and frozen, after having been towed
out of the ditch where skidded after hitting a patch of ice on the road. We sip hot chocolate and console
each other on the failure of our venture. Our friendship may even be stronger for our shared
misadventure.
But what if you had violated one or another of the rules? Supposing you had sold me on the idea that
your car had a foolproof traction stabilization system so there was no risk of skidding, when in fact you
knew its suspension was conventional and its tires somewhat bald. You had asserted something that
you didnt really believe (violating Rule 2.1 above). Then what would our post-crash conversation be
like? Most likely I would disown our action, blaming you as fully and exclusively responsible for our
161

See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discussion by Janmes Bohman and William Rehg (2007),
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/habermas, # 3.4.
163
See Jrgen Habermas, Truth and Justification, B. Fultner (trans.). MIT Press, 2003
162
Moral GPS
231
failure. If we had hot chocolate, it would probably be all over your face. Forget our friendship. Your
manipulation could have got me killed! Youre a !!@#$!!**##! Road Menace!!
Habermas proposes two criteria for the validity of a norm or course of action. The first, the principle of
Universalization, requires that a norm or course of action must be acceptable to all affected by it. For
a norm to be valid, the consequences and side effects of its general observance for the satisfaction of
each persons particular interests must be acceptable to all.164 The second, the principle of Discourse,
requires that only those norms can claim to be valid that meet (or could meet) with the approval of all
affected in their capacity as participants in a practical discourse.165
Universalization requires that no one affected by a norm or course of action is excluded from the
dialog that tests its validity (see Rule 3.1). That doesnt mean that absolutely everyone affected must
actually participate in the dialog; it means only that the dialog is potentially unlimited.166 (Note that
Habermas developed these criteria before the Internet became in effect a global nervous system 167. The
United Nations declaration that Internet access is a universal human right builds on similar reasoning,
stating that such universal access to dialog is a necessary condition for establishing and maintaining
justice.168)
Discourse requires that norms can be justified (valid) only through the process of dialog toward mutual
understanding and agreement. There is no appeal to a coercive first principle outside the community
of persons in dialog. There is no outside arbitrator to validate the judgment of a group. Justification
and validation are grounded in the process of communicative action itself. That in turn is grounded in
the essential relationships that form any human community. Impartiality is ensured by the process of
dialog itself.169
Moral validity, therefore, is essentially tied both with respecting the moral autonomy of each
individual and with supporting the web of relationships in the community that sustains each
individuals identity.170
d. Common Core of Morality
return to Language
Note that we havent arrived at any specific norms through this process. The Rules of the Road govern
a procedure for justifying or testing the validity of proposed norms. It directly provides no justified or
valid norms.171 Indirectly, however, the Rules of the Road affirm the necessary conditions for
communicative action, basically mutual respect for moral autonomy. The Moral GPS discusses those
as goals and ideals for all.
Habermas distinguishes the normative role of the rules from evaluative issues regarding what
constitutes the good life.172 He thereby avoids the pitfall of trying to define what is good for other
164

Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, p. 93. Discourse ethics thereby differs from the monological Kantian
Categorical Imperative because norms must be affirmed through the intersubjective process of dialog.
166
See Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, p. 163: At this third stage of interaction [Kohlbergs third level]
an idealized form of reciprocity becomes the defining characteristic of a cooperative seach for truth on the part of a
potentially unlimited communication community.
167
Compare the Internet with Teilhard de Chardins concept of the Noosphere: see The Formation of the Noosphere in
Teilhard de Chardin, The Future of Man (Harper, 1959).
168
http://documents.latimes.com/un-report-internet-rights/ (accessed June 22, 2011)
169
Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, p. 65 and pp. 75-76
170
This double link is emphasized by James Bohman and William Rehg, Habermas, Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, 3.4 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/habermas 2007 (Accessed 08 24 2011).
171
See Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, p. 93.
172
165
Moral GPS
232
persons. The normative content implied by the rules is limited to justice, i.e. fairness in respecting the
moral autonomy of all persons. Justice requires that persons are free to determine what is good for
themselves, either individually or collectively through a process of dialog in which the interests (good)
of each is affirmed but in relation to the interests of all others. Communicative action, in other words.
Therefore, evaluative judgments are likely to differ from community to community, culture to culture.
What does not differ is the normative content of the rules (pragmatic presuppositions) for
communicative action. Those pragmatic presuppositions undergird every process of argumentation by
which people seek mutual understanding.173
Any effort to identify moral norms runs the risk of ethnocentrism, i.e. considering as universal the
norms and values that are embedded in a limited, particular lifeworld. This risk is compounded if
someone attempts to impose such norms on others. That is moral bigotry.
Most moral dialog does occur within particular lifeworlds and so takes for granted the norms and
values of the particular cultures. That does not by itself invalidate such moral dialog, provided that it
does not directly exclude perspectives from outside the lifeworld.
A distinguishing characteristic of the present era of history is that virtually no lifeworld is immune
from exposure to perspectives from outside that lifeworld. All lifeworlds therefore are subject to
critical questioning, and the norms that are traditional in particular lifeworlds can no longer be relied
upon as certain. Therefore it is possible to see many events and movements of our time as symptomatic
of moral fear. It is as if the entire human community is faced with a crisis of moral development,174
challenged to transcend conformity to traditional norms.
Morality must therefore be re-grounded in principles that transcend particular culture. Habermas sees
that lifeworld-transcending ground in an orientation to principles of justice and to the procedure of
norm-justifying discourse.175 Discourse, Habermas says, stretches the presuppositions of contextbound communicative actions by extending their range to include competent subjects beyond the
provincial limits of their own particular forms of life. 176
It is important to recognize that these principles, which add up to mutual respect for moral autonomy,
are not grounded in a Western-style affirmation of individual rights. Rather, they are a function of the
practical context of moral discourse oriented toward cooperative action. They are the pragmatic
presuppositions of any moral dialog, the necessary conditions for the kind of communication which is
most essential for establishing and integrating a human community in any culture.
So we arrive at a common core of morality, based not in futile attempts at a deductive grounding of
ultimate principles but in the practical, unavoidable presuppositions of everyday conversation that
seeks mutual understanding.177 The common core amounts to mutual respect for moral autonomy and
the basic norms of justice that are implied therein.
This common core of morality is the lodestone of the Moral GPS, ensuring its universal validity and
objectivity without the risk of moral bigotry, and excluding subjectivism and relativism from its
operation.
e. Should and Ought.
173
Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, p. 82

See Robert Kegan, In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life. (Harvard University Press, 1994).
175
176
177
174
Moral GPS
233
return to Language
In the Moral GPS, should refers to a hypothetical moral obligation based on a general norm, without
considering all circumstances of a situation. This is often called a prima facie obligation, binding as
John Searle put it, other things being equal.178 Language here operates as justification discourse
and produces abstract norms that may remain valid under unchanging circumstances.179
The Moral GPS uses ought to refer to an actual moral obligation in actual circumstances,
considering all aspects of a situation, or as John Searle put it, all things considered. Language here
operates as application discourse. The validity of abstract norms here becomes questionable, and
norms must be evaluated for the appropriateness of their fit to particular circumstances.
This important distinction is behind the bright yellow warning you see as you launch the Moral GPS:
It is also behind your first consideration when making a decision: Keep your Eyes on the Road. Check
the Operators Manual there for a more detailed analysis of the should/ought distinction.
Jrgen Habermas makes a similar distinction between questions of what should I do and what
would I do.180 Should refers to a prima facie obligation, just as the Moral GPS uses the word.
Would refers to a persons actual intention to act or his confidence that he will act (similar to I will
in the Moral GPS). Habermas distinction stresses the actors own sense of obligation, whereas the
Moral GPS uses ought to stress an actual obligation arising from a moral claim made upon a person,
most likely from another person or persons.
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents

Return to GPS
Guide to Step 1
Working Together.
Remember that the Moral GPS is a positive ethic, not aggressive but responsive to others in their moral
autonomy. The Moral GPS is practical, focused on discernment and decision toward action. The norm
for good decisions is dialog toward consensus, especially in a multicultural world. True, this is a
positive ideal, something not always possible. But it is something you always ought to strive toward.
Knowing Another Person181
Theres a crucial difference between knowing about another person and knowing that person.
Lets say that as a college dean seeking to hire a new faculty member, I examine your resume, skim
your (meager) publications, consult with your references, and prepare to interview you armed with all
this information about you. In our meeting, my entire focus is to determine whether you will be useful
John Searle, Prima Facie Obligations. In Practical Reasoning, ed. J. Raz. (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp. 81-90.
Klaus Gnther, The Sense of Appropriateness: Application Discourses in Morality and Law, trans. John Farrell. (SUNY
Press, 1993), p. 204
180
181
This analysis is based on the thought of Emmanuel Levinas, through Roger S. Gottlieb, Ethics and Trauma: Levinas,
Feminism, and Deep Ecology. Cross Currents 44:2 (Summer 1994).
178
179
Moral GPS
234
for me. I share nothing of myself, trying to convey an impression of infallible authority. Our interview
concluded, I continue on with my agenda, perhaps completely forgetting you. Meanwhile, you likely
feel apprehensive, exposed like a pinned butterfly specimen, reduced merely to the information in my
folder. Even if you are hired, you are likely to feel used. You will feel some resentment toward the
college administration, and it will be a long time before you feel at home on the faculty, if you ever do.
Your efforts will feel cramped.
Have I understood you? Have I recognized your moral autonomy? Have I even made an attempt at
communicative action? Yet I know all about you. (Of course Ive forgotten your name....)
There is a subtle violence in the way I have treated you. Both you and I are victims of that violence, for
each of us has been falsified and impoverished. I have reduced you to something I have acquired and
can control, something I can use. I have totally ignored who you really are. Likewise, I have reduced
myself to function and strategy, closed myself into my role, and imprisoned myself within the meager
circle of what I can control. Levinas sees only a short distance between my behavior and murder.
Supposing, though, that I wanted to get to know you?
Role relationships do not need to be limited to functional, strategic action. One change can make all
the difference: do I recognize you as a person and respect your moral autonomy?
When you enter my office for our interview, my agenda is suspended. Yes, I am wondering if you
would to well as a member of our college community, but that is not the limit of my interest. I also
wonder who you really are. I am open to surprises. I am also ready to let you know me, especially my
hopes and my worries for the college. Will we be able to work together for the good of this learning
community? If so, you are likely to feel embraced within the community and energized. Your efforts
may blossom. I, too, leave our interview energized. I need not be infallible nor in control. The good of
the college community is our work, all of us together.182
Something happened in this second scenario that goes beyond simply a nicer or more friendly
interview. What is the source of our being energized, even exhilarated, by our meeting? Levinas notes
that the approach, the presence of another person breaks into my enclosed world, demands that in
responding to you I reach beyond (transcend) myself. Levinas says that in such responsiveness we
touch the Good beyond Being.
Responsibility enacts that Good, that trace of the infinite, because such instances of
answering to or for another are everyday events, even though they are not typical of
natural, self-interested behaviors. We do not choose to be responsible. Responsibility
arises as if elicited, before we begin to think about it, by the approach of the other
person.183
So it seems that a simple effort toward communicative action has far-reaching implications. You and I
are both spared a debilitating violence. Both are energized. Each of our worlds has been expanded even
by this brief visit to one anothers world. And both of us, fellow-travelers on the Moral Highway, have
in some way touched something beyond ourselves, our concerns, our life-worlds, and our goals
perhaps the ultimate goal of the Highway itself, the Good.184
Return to GPS
Guide to Step 1
182
You may be concerned about equity in the hiring process. Granted, an impersonal interview style has the advantage of
being equally unfair to all. Remember, though, that you dont need to be impersonal to be impartial.
183
Bettina Bergo, Levinas, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/, 6.
184
For a related insight, see Gibbs discussion of near-death experiences of universal connectedness in the Tourist Info
Center.
Moral GPS
Understanding Another Person
235
Essential to the Moral Point of View is impartiality, the ability to step outside ones own perspective in
order to understand things from different perspectives. That capacity for seeing things from other
peoples points of view is also a principal component in moral maturity, called decentering or
perspective-taking. See the discussion of moral development in the Tourist Info Center.
As you relate to other people, this capacity is called empathy. Empathy means understanding and
appreciating another person's feelings and experiences as if from that person's point of view. It is the
ability to enter vicariously into another's life-world so as to see and evaluate things (including oneself)
from that person's perspective. This is a deeper capacity than mere sympathy, which is imagining
oneself in another persons situation and interpreting it from your own perspective.
Note that empathy is a characteristic of moral maturity, not an inborn trait that you either have or
dont. Empathy can be learned. You can develop empathy through your relationships with others,
provided that you recognize others as others and dont read your own perspective into them.185
When you recognize and appreciate that another person is unique and particular, just herself, you
simultaneously realize that you are unique and particular, just yourself. In a way, thats deflating: you
are not everything, nor are you self-sufficient. But more essentially it can be marvelously fulfilling
through your relationship with each other, even as mere collaborators in moral action. Through such
relationships, even working relationships, you reach toward true moral autonomy, your free embrace of
life in the world with others that affirms your mutual interdependence.186
Empathy, however, is always only partial. Understanding another person is always an ongoing quest,
for that person remains irreducibly different from you. You will be tempted to simplify that quest by
filling in what remains a mystery in the other person from your own imagination.187 That is a
dangerous turn, for it skids you back into a self-enclosed world. The mystery must remain a mystery,
and so your relationships with others must remain open to surprises, eager to listen, reluctant to judge.
You may want to examine the Ethic of Care for more insight into the importance of empathy on the
Moral Highway. Indeed, our ability to empathize with one another and to have compassion on one
another may have a tranformative power, what the Dalai Lama calls a global revolution of peace. 188
185
Fiona Robinson, Globalizing Care: Ethics, Feminist Theory, and International Relations (Westview Press, 1999), pp 46,
110.
186
See Robinson, p. 48.
187
See John Wall, "The Creative Imperative: Religious Ethics and the Formation of Life in Common." Journal of
Religious Ethics 33:1 (March 2005), pp. 56-58. See also Robinson, p. 102
188
Dalai Lama, Ethics for the New Millennium (Penguin, 2001), pp. 62, 215.
Moral GPS
236
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents

Return to GPS
Guide to Step 1
This section of the Moral GPS draws partly from a covenantal model for ethics, particularly as
developed by Joseph L. Allen.189 Unlike the social contract, a covenant is not initiated by negotiation
of individual participants, even hypothetical ones. One finds oneself within an already established
community, and either embraces it or exiles oneself from it. To embrace that community means to
entrust oneself to others in the community and to accept such entrusting from others. That mutual
responsibility sustains the community over time. Of course, such entrusting includes serious risk, for
one depends upon the fidelity of others and one pledges ones own fidelity into an uncertain future.
The Moral Highway metaphor implies such a moral community of mutual entrusting. You find
yourself on the Moral Highway willy nilly, as long as you decide anything. Unlike the covenanted
community, though, you dont have a choice of taking it or leaving it. You can accept moral
responsibility and so reach toward moral autonomy, you can refuse moral responsibility and become a
threat to everyone else on the road, a Road Menace, or you can freeze into decision paralysis and
become a traffic obstruction to others. But you are on the Moral Highway. Make the best of it.
You have seen that moral autonomy includes recognition of interdependence. Interdependence, though,
implies a certain vulnerability in relation to each other. How do we deal with that?
We are capable of doing good on the Moral Highway (that is, in life), and we are capable of doing
harm. When you trust another person, you make yourself vulnerable to that persons capacity to harm
you as well as to benefit you. You take a risk. Lets say you get hurt. Theres a temptation to say to
yourself, Ill never trust that person again, or even Ill never trust anybody again.
If you give up on trust, though, you are isolating yourself from the community of the Moral Highway.
Its best, then, to cling to trust even against a bad experience. In fact, if the Moral Highway is not to
dissolve into chaos, we need to hold on to trust indefinitely.190
Obviously, therefore, any positive ethic must be founded on hope. Hope trusts the unknown future in a
way that transcends particular expectations. It is clearer now that such trust is really in other people.
The philosopher Gabriel Marcel described hope as a dimension of interpersonal relationships (love, if
you wish). To love another is to say, I hope in you, not for any particular expectation, but for the
relationship that transcends either of us, our communion. I hope in you...for us.191 On the Moral
Highway, that act of hope is in each and every other person, I hope in you, all of you, for us. And
the us for whom we hope is everyone.
Remember that such trust is a two-way street. I hope in you, but you also hope in me. Can I be
worthy of such trust? Not on my own, I fearI have no idea of what challenges even the next few
days will bring, nor whether I have the ability to meet even those challenges. If we are limited to what
each of us can predict and controlforget it. Hope is foolish, and the Moral Highway should be
abandoned, leaving us wandering aimlessly in a trackless wilderness (despair, in other words). But we
do hope. In fact we must, if we are to go on at all. In such hope we again touch something beyond
ourselves, our concerns, our life-worlds, and our goals.
189
Joseph L. Allen, Love & Conflict: A Covenantal Model of Christian Ethics. (University Press of America, 1995).
Annette Baier, Moral Prejudices: Essays on Ethics (Harvard University Press, 1995), pp. 133-136, 146, 180-181.
191
Gabriel Marcel, Homo Viator: Introduction to a Metaphysic of Hope, trans. Emma Craufurd (Harper and Row, 1962),
pp. 60-67.
190
Moral GPS
237
So we must hold on to trust. We must hope in each other. The Dalai Lama192 points to quiet,
uncelebrated human kindness that far outweighs headline-grabbing violence and dishonesty, just as
careful and courteous drivers far outnumber the noticeably dangerous Road Menaces. To the extent
that we drive with trust rather than fear on the Moral Highway, to that extent we build toward peace.
Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. To the extent we betray the trust of another and cause her to
fear, to that extent we wreck the hopes of all others and undermine the entire Moral Highway. Thats
the deeper evil of the Road Menace.
In hope I entrust myself to others in the community and I accept such entrusting from others. The
others whose trust I bear are those closest to me, of course. But those others include everyone
even people of the future. People not yet born hope in you and me for an us that includes themfor
leaving them a habitable world and a smoothly-running Moral Highway. We have to be responsible in
our decisions to avoid diminishing the future for others. To the extent that future generations may be
affected by our decisions, they are stakeholders and their interests must be considered in any
responsible decision.
As I set out on the Moral Highway, then, I do so in hopehope in every other person to be
trustworthy, not to betray our common human life and destiny, and to make room for each other person
on the Highway by respecting moral autonomy. I hope also that I will be able to sustain others hope in
me. My hope is not naive, for I recognize the dangers on the Moral Highway. But hope remains, for
most people have others best interests at heart as well as their own. Further, it seems that in hope we
all touch (consciously or unconsciously) something beyond ourselves that sustains the Highway itself.
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents
Return to GPS
Guide to Step 1
Story. See above.

Metaphor
Metaphor is a form of language that uses a tangible, familiar thing to speak of a less tangible,
unfamiliar reality, based on some likeness between the otherwise unlike things. Metaphor thereby
allows some understanding of the less tangible.
As early as elementary school, people learn of figures of speech called simile and metaphor.
Both are comparisons of things that are unlike. Thats paradoxical, of course: comparing the
incomparable. A simile uses the word like (or as) to warn you of the paradox:
My love is like a red, red rose
Thats newly sprung in June
(Robert Burns)
Metaphor skips the warning and rams you right into the paradox:
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Dalai Lama, Ethics for the New Millennium (Penguin, 2001), including from the publisher.
192
Moral GPS
238
Shakespeare, Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 2428
Shakespeares metaphor prompts the readers mind quickly to strip away what is unlike between the
abstract notion, life, and the concrete experience of a lousy actor on a stage so that what is alike leaps
forth intuitively and dramatically: failure, absurdity, meaninglessness. Metaphor is therefore much
more powerful (intellectually and emotionally) than a simple direct statement, life is absurd.
Metaphor is rooted in concrete, lived experience.
It may be that much of our language has developed by using very ordinary sense experiences to build
concepts that reach beyond sense objects. Confusion, for instance, builds on the experience of
different liquids flowing together so they can no longer be distinguished. Evidence builds on the
Latin videre, to see, hence information that enables one to see the truth. It is interesting to compare
the root metaphors that different languages use to reach intangible concepts. Truth for instance.
Latin-based languages (veritas, verite, verdad) build on the ver/videre root, to see. German
(wahrheit) links to whren, to endure. Greek (aletheia) links to Lethe, the mythical river
of forgetfulnesshence, unforgetfulness or mindfulness. And English? The closest link is troth, loving
fidelity, linked to the older word trow, believe, have faith, or trust. In our everyday talk, that
metaphoric base is overlooked. But that base remains hidden in languagewith all its paradox and its
power.
Metaphor therefore enables us to speak of what we dont know very well in terms of what is familiar.
Indeed, metaphor enables us to speak in familiar terms of what we cannot know, of things too
wonderful for me, which I did not know (Job 42:3 NRSV). Metaphor empowers religious language,
allowing people to speak of the ineffable, to access in inaccessible.193
Hence metaphor plays a huge role in peoples conceptualizing of their world. Unpacking the
metaphors within a persons (or a peoples) language enables one to see that lifeworld as if from the
inside. Further, since that metaphoric base is often overlooked or unconscious in peoples talking,
attention to it can provide insight even deeper than those people are aware of.194
Stakeholder
The term stakeholder is derived from discussions in business ethics concerning the ethical
responsibility of corporate management. Stakeholder Theory challenges the view that the sole
responsibility of management is to the Operators or stockholders of a corporation. (See Market Theory
in the Tourist Info Center.) According to Stakeholder Theory, management has duties not only to
stockholders but to anyone who is involved in or affected by the enterprise (including employees,
suppliers, customers, neighbors and the like).195
In the Moral GPS, the term refers to any person likely to be affected by a moral decision. That includes
persons who may be involved in making the decision, persons who may benefit or be harmed by the
decision, and persons whose own decisions may be in some way dependent on the decision. In effect,
for the Moral GPS stakeholders include all of your fellow travelers on the Moral Highway (even past
and future travelers).
193
See Janet Martin Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language (Oxford University Press, 1989).
See Alexis Madrigal, Why Are Spy Researchers Building a 'Metaphor Program'? The Atlantic, May 25, 2011
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/05/why-are-spy-researchers-building-a-metaphor-program/239402/
(accessed June 20, 2011)
195
R. Edward Freeman, A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation in Tom Beauchamp and Norman Bowie,
Ethical Theory and Business (Prentice Hall, 2001), 56-65; also Robert Phillips, Stakeholder Theory and Organizational
Ethics (Berrett-Koehler, 2003).
194
Moral GPS
239
While all these fellow travelers may be stakeholders in a decision you face, not all need to be directly
involved in your decision process, nor all to the same degree. That judgment is part of the evaluation of
your situation. See Eyes on the Road.
Exclusions
A fundamental rule of the road is, Dont force anyone off the road! Everyone has a right to be heard
and to question.
You have seen (Language: Validity and Justification above) that deliberate exclusion of stakeholders
from moral dialog invalidates any moral judgment. Such exclusion is the act of a Road Menace.
Nevertheless, exclusions occur. In fact, often whole groups are excluded from participating in
decisions that seriously affect their lives. The Moral GPS refers to some of these exclusions as
breakdowns, others as discrimination. While these exclusions are most often not direct and deliberate,
nevertheless they present a serious challenge. A world without such exclusions is an ideal. Therefore
the Moral GPS addresses this challenge as a goal and ideal for all on the Moral Highway.
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents

Return to GPS
Guide to Step 1
Consult the Tourist Information Center for further insight into recognizing and resolving dilemmas.
Controversies (Congested Areas) and Dangerous Intersections require that you steer carefully. See that
section of the Moral GPS.
Moral GPS
240
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents
Guide to Step 2: Where to?

Return to GPS
II. Where to?

A. Look Ahead
D. Particular Goals
GPS MENU
GPS START
A. Look Ahead
Return to GPS
Contents
Guide to Step 2
The simple premise beneath this section is: Youre in time. That seems like an obvious statement, but
its not. Curiously, its the simple things closest to us that often are the most puzzling.
What is time?
Theories of time abound.196 Does time exist? (Plato said yes.) Or is time simply a relationship among
things that exist? (Thats what Aristotle said.)
So what? Why are esoteric theories of time important for the practical reality of the Moral Highway?
Theories of time are important because they undergird assumptions about our life, about our world,
and about how we ought to plan or set goals. Most often those assumptions are unconscious. Even
more hidden from conscious reflection are the underlying notions of time. You have already seen (in
mapping your moral location) how important it is to become conscious of your assumptions in order to
examine them critically. Its equally important to try to make explicit the implicit notions underlying
your views.
Lets reflect on three questions about time. First, does time exist? (Whos right, Plato or Aristotle?)
Next, what is the shape of time? Third, how do our reflections on the first two questions affect our
travel on the Moral Highway?
Does time exist? Is time something or merely the relation of other things? In Platos view, time
came to be because the creator wanted to enable limited human creatures to appreciate the eternal
universe, and so devised a moving image of eternity that we call time.197 Time exists, therefore, as a
kind of medium for human beings to catch a glimmer of the eternal, ideal world. Aristotle, on the
For an excellent summary of philosophic theories, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/. (accessed 11/16/2011)

Plato Timaeus, trans. Benjamin Jowett (Random House 1937), #37
196
197
Moral GPS
241
198
contrary, said that time is merely a before-and-after relation (number) of change. For Aristotle, then,
time has no more real existence than an abstract series of numbers.
Notice that Aristotle is simply using mathematical sequence as an analogy for time. You count from
one to ten, and one comes before two, three after two. Simple. But the analogy slips a bit when you
realize you can just as easily count down from ten to one. What happens to before-and-after?
Granted, Aristotles notion of time is very useful in quantum physics and science fiction. But on the
Moral Highway? Arent we used to thinking that the past is past and gone, and that time is not
reversible? Hmmm. Lets look more closely at Platos view.
Plato starts with the idea that true reality exceeds our capacity to perceive it. Glimpses are all we can
see, partial and incomplete shadows of the truly real. (See Platos famous Allegory of the Cave.199)
People might think those shadows are the true reality, that the moving image is all there is. Plato points
to a deeper understanding.
Perhaps an analogy from geometry will clarify Platos idea. A nineteenth-century science fiction story,
Flatland,200 plays with spatial dimensions that are related by movement through time. So a line is
formed by a point moving through time, a plane by a line moving through time, a solid by a plane
moving through time. So in the two-dimensional world of square people, an intersecting sphere
appears first as a point, then as a circle expanding and contracting, only to shrink again to a point and
disappear. What appears all at once as a complete whole in a three-dimensional world, in a twodimensional world appears only as a moving image of that complete whole. Plato conceives of the
eternal universe as if it were a dimension higher than our three-dimensional world, so what we block
people perceive as a process is really a complete whole all at once in its own dimension.
Blockheads with deeper understanding could attain insight into that reality that exceeds their
three-dimensional capacity to perceive.
If Plato is correct and time exists as a moving image, then there should be an invitation to deeper
insight in our ordinary experience of time. That is, if we take the time to reflect on it. Lets look for it.
What do we experience of time? Its easy to focus on events-in-time, but it takes an effort of reflection
to catch hold of our sense of time itself. Even then, theres very little that we can confidently say about
it. One thing seems quite clear: time passes.201
Photography has played tricks with our sense of time. The photograph freezes a moment, a now,
so that we think in terms of past, present, and future when the reality of a present is questionable.
Our word moment, for instance, means anything but a frozen now. The word is derived from the
Latin momentum, which means movement, reinforcing the reality that time is process, flow, passing.
Our word present adds a profound element to our notion of time. That word is derived from the Latin
praeesse, which means to be before, in effect to stand face to facewith another person. In the flow
of time, our relationship with another person (a presence) provides a stable island.202 It may be that
our capacity to be aware of time (especially of a present) is developed through our mutual presence
with other persons.
198
Ursula Coope, Time for Aristotle (Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 85

Plato, Republic, trans. Benjamin Jowett (Random House, 1937), Book VII
200
Edwin A Abbott, Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, 1884. http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/201 (accessed
12/27/2011)
201
See Martin Heidegger, On Time and Being, trans. Joan Stambaugh (Harper and Row, 1972).
202
The island image may be misleading. The stability in our sense of time is less like standing on firm ground than like
the balance of an expert log-roller in the midst of a rushing river.
199
Moral GPS
242
In any case, we can sense the flow of time. Events approach and then pass away. Our ability to sense
that flow (rooted most likely in memory and in interpersonal relationship) means that our awareness
stands somehow detached from or beyond the flow of time. (By contrast, we do not sense the spin of
the earth as we stand upon it.) That stance somehow beyond time enables us to envision time past and
time futurea road traveled, a road ahead.
Events approach us as if given to us, and so the flow of time can be sensed as a kind of giving (another
sense of present). If we link that sense to Platos notion of time as a moving image of eternity,
perhaps we can envision the giving as an image of what all time would be like as a complete whole all
at once. Perhaps this could link to the sense of universal connectedness some see at the highest
stages of moral development. In any event, our experience of time is significant, and it is all too easy to
overlook.
Return to GPS
Guide to Step 2
What is the shape of time? Time flows. We know it passes from uncertain future into settled past.
But what is the overall pattern of times movement? There are two different traditions concerning that,
both using spatial metaphors to express the pattern of time.
Many religions and cultures, particularly in Asia, think of time moving in a cyclic pattern, always
returning to its beginnings only to revolve again. Think, for instance, of the idea of reincarnationone
soul spins through many lives. The universe itself pulses through many cycles of genesis and
dissolution. Time is structured like wheels within wheels.
Western cultures tend to think of time as a straight linefrom in the beginning to the end of time.
That end of time is understood in two quite different ways. Is it an end like a destruction? Or is it
an end like a purpose to be fulfilled? These two ways of understanding the end of time are both
strongly stated in the Bible, the destruction most notably in Revelation, the purpose most clearly in
the Pauline letters Colossians and Ephesians.203 In either case, time is understood as moving toward
some sort of end and resolution. Whats different is the fate of our present world: is it junked and
replaced, or is it sustained and transformed?
These two shapes of time overlap quite a bit. People in Western cultures tend to include cyclic patterns
(like the seasons) into the linear shape of time, resulting in a kind of spiral patternas before, but
different and further along than before.
Return to GPS
Guide to Step 2
How do our notions of time affect our travel on the Moral Highway? On the Moral
Highway we travel through time. What is past is past and cannot be undone, but it would be foolish not
to keep the past in mind and learn from it. The future is open and unknown, but it would be foolish not
to provide for ourselves and others (the word provide literally means to see ahead).
For each of us, the Moral Highway is partly a road already traveled, so its important to check the
mirror to evaluate past actions. It is a road ahead, so it is important to have goals and to plan.
The Moral Highway is one road. We travel it step by step, mile by mile. But think of Platos idea of
time as a moving image of eternity. What might our particular journey look like from that timetranscending dimension? Our common habitation of the earth links each persons story to the history of
all other people of all times and places upon the earth, as single strand in a universal tapestry, a single
melody in a universal harmony, a single travel itinerary on the universal Moral Highway. Perhaps that
can give us a glimmer of where the Moral Highway may be heading, ultimately.
203
See Leonard Bowman, Hope Against Hope: Toward Hope Beyond Hope (iUniverse, 2001).
Moral GPS
The notions of the shape of time seriously affect any effort at dialog toward consensus, for these
notions are not only diverse but conflicting.
243
The cyclic notion of time is linked to beliefs in karma and reincarnation. Karma is the law of cause and
effect, that every action entangles a person more deeply in the circling of time (the cycle of births and
deaths, samsara) and irrevocably affects that persons destiny even beyond the present life. Present
suffering may be due to a past lifes sin and may lead to attainment in a future life. Yet for the Hindu
or Buddhist, the true aim is to transcend that cycle of births and deaths. Ones right effort is to
disentangle oneself from the karmic effect of actionthat is, from time. Obviously that aim affects a
persons attitude toward taking action in the present. Should one avoid any action, justified or not, lest
one become even more entangled? Should one take needed action, even if that means deeper
entanglement? This is the question at the heart of the Bhagavad-Gita. The answer given there is that
one should act vigorously, but dispassionately and without attachment.204 A person need notshould
notbe motivated by desire for good results or aversion to bad results. Do ones duty merely because
it ought to be done.
Linear notions of time affect travel on the Moral Highway differently, depending on whether the end
of time is viewed as a destruction or a transformation. For both, only one birth and death is allotted per
customer. A person may be held accountable for his or her actions not by inevitable karmic effect, but
by some sort of judgment beyond time, or at least beyond ones lifetime. Some people consider fear of
that judgment a necessary condition for morality.205
The view that expects the end to be destruction is Apocalyptic. In the extreme form of this view, the
entire world is subject to judgment and is already condemned as evil. The only good comes from God.
There is no point in trying to make the world a better place or even in trying to conserve natural
resources. Such belief in the world and in human perfectibility it itself a delusion. Therefore any
human effort to improve the world is useless at best, diabolical at worst. Action should be directed
toward saving oneself and others from the world, even perhaps trying to hasten the coming of the
end.
The view that expects the end to be transformation is called Cosmic. In the extreme form of this
view, the entire world is good and all history reflects the divine design to reconcile all things in unity.
Human effort is a crucial part of this design, so all actions should be evaluated as to whether they build
toward universal reconciliation or obstruct it. Needless to say, from the Cosmic perspective the
Apocalyptic view is diametrically opposed to the divine design. From the Apocalyptic perspective, of
course, the Cosmic view is diabolical deception.
It is highly unlikely that any progress toward consensus will be possible if participants are embedded
in these conflicting notions of the shape of time. Any effort to work together must begin by persons
bringing to explicit consciousness the notions of time that is implicit in their worldviews. Then they
need to step back from those notions, recognizing them not as clearly the way things are but as
differing interpretive views of a way things are that is definitely not clearly known.
The sharpest conflict will likely be between Cosmic and Apocalyptic views. It might be helpful to
note that both views coexist in the Bible. To Christians, call attention to Revelation and to the Pauline
letters Colossians and Ephesians. In the Hebrew Scriptures Daniel is most clearly Apocalyptic, while
II Isaiah and the universalist J tradition in the Torah reflect the Cosmic perspective. For Muslims,
The Quran is predominantly Apocalyptic, but the Sufi tradition provides Cosmic perspectives.
204
See the Bhagavad-Gita 3.25 and 18: 6, 9 and 23. http://www.bhagavad-gita.us (accessed 12/27/2011).
For a sense that this is still a live issue, google morality without God.
205
Moral GPS
244
Clearly, then, peoples assumptions about time are important for the practical reality of the Moral
Highway. Perhaps most important is the realization that we do not know what time is or what the future
holds. All these notions of time tend to generate specific expectations. Once we admit that we do not
know, were likely to be much more tentative about our expectations. People who dont admit that may
consider their expectations the will of God. Such people then consider anything opposing their
expectations as the enemy of God. Moral bigotry blooms, and the most dangerous kind of Road
Menace roars forth.
On the Moral Highway, it is crucial that our sense of time and of the future is based not in such
expectations but in hope. Hope is trust in the future that does not ignore risks and dangers and does
not make specific demands, for it affirms the future in a way that transcends particular expectations.
Hope is able to transcend samsara and apocalypticism and cosmic optimism. Hope therefore can
provide a positive standpoint to which people may step back from the notions of time in which they
have been embedded. In hope people may attain a more universal perspective. Might it be that hope
adds an entire dimension to our awareness of time? (Note that this stepping back is another form of
the decentering that is essential to moral development: see the Tourist Info Center on Helping
Rookie Drivers.)
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents
Return to GPS
Guide to Step 2
The Moral GPS here shares some concepts with planning and goal-setting strategies. This step, setting
your goals and ideals, is comparable to the first step in a typical institutional strategic planning process,
defining the institutions mission and overall vision.
Dont confuse this step with the more particular setting of specific goals (as in, for instance, the
popular S.M.A.R.T. goal patterns)206 This is not yet the time for personal ten-year plans.The Moral
GPS will address that sort of thing with particular goals.
This section of the Moral GPS reflects the ethics of Aristotle, who identifies the main goal of life as
eudaimonia, loosely translated happiness, and that comes from a life lived rationally according to
virtues.207
Remember that the basic goals you aim for are likely to be qualities of character. Development of those
is not entirely under your control. Nor are they likely to be attained in a short time. In fact, it is not
likely you will even have the satisfaction of knowing for sure youve attained them. Still, these basic
goals will serve to guide your particular plans and decisions. Once again, the Moral GPS points a way
of hope.
Most important, DONT SKIP THIS STEP! People who focus on particular goals without a larger
sense of mission and vision typically become traffic obstructions on the Moral Highway. No matter
how experienced or expert they are, their limited perspective causes them to drive like rookies.

206
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents
Return to GPS
Guide to Step 2
First articulated in Doran, George T. "There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write managements's goals and objectives." and
Miller, Arthur F. & Cunningham, James A "How to avoid costly job mismatches" Management Review, 70:11 (Nov 1981).
207
See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/ The virtues selected in this section of the Moral GPS are from
Platos Republic.
Moral GPS
245
The problem of determining whats good for other people.

Longer-term (and larger-scope) goals.
Minimizing exclusions.
Patience and persistence.
The problem of determining whats good for other people.

A medieval thinker like Thomas Aquinas was confident that he could define what is good for
everyone. According to Aquinas, do good, is the primary moral norm, and that good can be
determined simply by identifying those things to which a person is by nature inclined. Such
inclinations include the desire to preserve ones own life, the desire to found a family, and the desire to
know. These inclinations serve as the basis for norms that apply to all people.208 This thinking is the
basis for the Natural Law theory of ethics.
Unfortunately, Aquinas based his understanding of human nature primarily on the 13th-century male
population of France and Italy, and most likely on the more affluent among those.Their concept of the
world was geocentric and static, and their culture lacked awareness of the complexity of human
behavior that modern psychology has provided. It is true that some goods identified in relation to
this limited and privileged group may legitimately be applied to all humanity (basic goods that form
our moral common world). But it is likely that there are as many differences among peoplegender,
nation, class, and the likeas there are similarities. The risk is that what the limited group considers
good might be imposed as the norm for all, without taking differences into account. Then the more
specific the good in question, the less likely it is that the norm may legitimately be applied.
This issue is called the standard person problem. Cooper notes that standard person problem is
committed when some group assumes without reflection that its beliefs can accurately serve as a
standard for judging everyone elses experience.209 Typically that group is a privileged powerful
group that identifies its own interests as norms for all.210 On the Moral Highway, the standard person
problem amounts to moral bigotry, a serious skid toward being a Road Menace.
Later thinkers attempted to avoid overdefining good for others by identifying a notion of good that
did not depend on questionable philosophic or religious assumptions. Jeremy Bentham identified that
good as pleasure,211 generating a theorymore fully developed by John Stuart Millthat the aim of
moral action is to maximize pleasure and minimize painfor everyone (or at least for the greatest
number of people). This is the Utilitarian theory. A variant of this ethical theory is the Market Theory,
which holds that the greatest good for the greatest number is best attained by each individual seeking
his or her own self-interest.
Unfortunately, one persons pleasure may be another persons pain. Thus the Utilitarian approach skids
either into the standard person problem by defining what is supposed to be pleasurable for others, or
into relativism by denying that there can be any norm beyond individual subjective satisfaction.
Further, the Utilitarian approach risks excluding some from the general good, and the Market Theory
militates against social efforts to remedy such exclusions.
208
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-IIae, q. 94, a. 2 and a. 4.

David E. Cooper, Ethics for Professionals in a Multicultural World (Pearson/Prentice Hall 2004), p. 330.
210
Christopher B Gray, ed., The Philosophy of Law: An Encyclopedia (Garland, 1999) vol. 2 p. 206.
211
See the Standford Encyclpedia of Philosophy, Utilitarianism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/ and
Hedonism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hedonism/. (both accessed 11/16/2011)
209
Moral GPS
246
Discourse Ethics seeks a solution to this impasse by affirming a legitimate universal good: enabling all
persons to define what is good for themselves. (This is expressed in the Universalization Principle, that
for a moral norm to be valid it must--at least potentially--meet with the approval of all affected,
through participation in practical discourse.)212 That does not deny universal ethical norms. On the
contrary, the very process of such discourse grounds the set of norms called the Rules of the Road in
the Moral GPS.
Two problems remain: 1) determining what is good for other persons who are incapable of choosing
for themselves, and 2) dealing with people who want to make self-destructive or self-diminishing
choices.
Persons incapable of choosing for themselves include persons living now and persons not yet even
conceived. Living persons may be incapable of choosing for themselves either because they are much
too young, or because they are incapacitated (for instance, the physicians unconscious patient). This is
the issue of Paternalism, discussed in the supplement to the Moral GPS. Concern for people of the
future raises the issue of stewardship and environmental justice, the obligation to leave a habitable
earth to future generations.
People often make choices that are, in the long run, self-diminishing and even self-destructive. If such
choices directly affect only the person choosing, interference with such a choice requires very strong
justification (for instance, preventing a suicide). Nevertheless, self-diminishing and self-destructive
choices reflect a lack of true moral autonomy. Noninterference is an inadequate response to such a
person. You ought to do what you can, not to change the persons choice but to foster his growth
toward moral autonomy. The Moral GPS provides some helpful hints for fostering moral growth in
rookie drivers. Sometimes it might be helpful to distinguish intrinsic from instrumental goods for the
person. So, for instance, a person driven to amass wealth might be asked, what is it for? (Money,
after all, is an instrumental good, useful for attaining things which are desirable in themselves-intrinsic goods.) In itself, money is not a real good.
However, if another persons self-diminishing or self-destructive choices directly affect others, you
likely have a Road Menace to deal with. That is a serious challenge, for even in legitimately resisting a
Road Menace, you risk skidding into becoming a Road Menace yourself.
Identifying the good across cultures can be exceedingly tricky. What is considered an essential good in
a Western industrial society (for instance, equitable treatment of women in society), may be expressed
in very different ways in other cultures or even denied in some cultures. To impose Western standards
may amount to cultural imperialismon the Moral Highway, a form of Moral Bigotry. On the other
hand, to the extent that persons are excluded and moral autonomy is repressed, there is an obligation to
do what is possible to remedy that situation.
If you remember always to respect the moral autonomy of other persons, your judgment in this tricky
area will likely be sound.
Longer-term (and larger-scope) goals.
Return to GPS
Guide to Step 2
On the Moral Highway there is a good beyond particular goals that has to do with the Highway
itself. The Moral Highway is larger than any and all individual itineraries. It has to be in order to
contain them. The Moral Highway is not limited to the familiar road on which we make our trips. It is
also an open road. The Highway itself leads beyond particular itineraries, into the future.
212
Jrgen Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber
Nicholsen (MIT Press, 1990), pp. 92-93.
Moral GPS
247
So far we have considered good for others in terms of essential inclinations defined by a natural
law theory, or attaining pleasure and avoiding pain as defined by egoist or utilitarian theories. BOTH
approaches operate within a limited frame: the "now" or at least the short-term. They are not capable of
reaching into the indefinite future as the Moral Highway does. A positive (hopeful) ethic must be able
to do that.
What happens to our effort to understand good if we include Platos concept in the mix? (Plato
thought of the Form of the Good as a power beyond all particulars; it imparts truth to the known and
the power of knowing to the knower, as the ultimate creative and attractive entity213). Problematic as
Platos concept may be, it certainly may open the range of our settings for the Moral GPS.
What happens if we understand good as transcending any particulars?
(We have to be careful here. Sometimes people have reached for great ideas or visions and then
tried to implement themtypically with disastrous consequences for the personal and moral autonomy
of others around them. One looks at first half of the twentieth century and shudders. Keep practical
aims modest: keep your eyes on the road. But dont lose that sense of the open road beyond practical
aims.)
Is the human community itself a good? Another thing the paroxysms of the Twentieth Century
taught us is to mistrust any notion of an inevitable dialectic or overarching Hegelian Spirit driving
collective human activity. Habermas recognized a "higher level subjectivity" only in public spheres, in
dialog.214 Yet the past two decades have shown an immense, geometric and global expansion of public
dialog. Part of that expansion is in moral awareness itself: the arena of all our decisions is now
undeniably multicultural, and it is feasible to expand not only our moral awareness but our moral
communication accordingly. Our human community itself has changed as our communication has
been transformed, so that it is obvious that we are indeed traveling a single Moral Highway together. Is
this fact itself a good?
As we travel the Moral Highway, the Moral GPS reminds us that we have to keep our eyes on the road.
We are immersed in the immediate and that is where we act. But just as the Moral GPS supplies an
eye in the sky overview of our location, so we are able to keep a sense of that open road ahead,
beyond our particular and immediate concerns. Is this another dimension of good, not only the
human community here and now, but as drawn forward toward that open road? Our sense of location
in the world with others must include a temporal dimension, so that we recognize responsibility for
the future. Good therefore implies respect and care for the necessary conditions for the full
personhood of future others. They have a right to receive a livable world from our time. As the
Native American proverb says, we do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.
Openness implies undefined possibilities. The Moral Highway as an open road beckons toward a
future of undefined possibilities, inspiring creativity as well as care as we travel together. The Moral
Highway is the human community (a community of communities) on its shared journey through time
upon the earth. Human communities throughout history have changed, adapted, and renewed
themselvesor else disappeared. In todays multicultural world, adaptation and renewal means
sharing the road with other communities. This has to be more than a matter of coexistence. Our shared
travel on the Moral Highway implies a unity that must prevail over our differences. That beckoning,
213
Plato, The Republic, trans.Benjamin Jowett (Random House, 1937) Book Six, 509, p. 770.
Nicholsen (MIT Press, 1990), p. 209.
214
Moral GPS
undefined possibility ahead begins to take shape as a creative process of reconciliation among all
human communities.215
Minimizing exclusions.
248
Return to GPS
Guide to Step 2
Obviously efforts toward economic and social justice (avoiding breakdowns) are essential for the
Moral Highway. An excellent set of particular goals in this direction is the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, including the recent statement that Internet access is such a universal
right. For the Moral GPS, the rational foundation for affirming these goals is not only a theory of
human rights, but also (and more practically in a multicultural context) that they are necessary
conditions for persons to exercise their moral autonomy.
Exclusions present a different challenge. Here it is not so much the economic and political
circumstances of others that are the problem. More likely the problem arises from persons cultural
circumstances-- in which the self is so embedded that those particular circumstances are accepted as
unquestionable reality.216 Persons recognize and affirm themselves in terms of group memberships:
family, faith, institution, neighborhood, state, country, and the like. Habermas calls this their
lifeworld.217
Any group includes members. Those members share common assumptions and values. They share
common characteristics as well. If a group is to maintain any sort of identity, there will be people who
are not part of that group. They are excluded. To the extent that I am embedded in my group, I will
regard such people as other and alienif I even take their existence into account at all. In other
words, I am prejudiced, even if my prejudice is unconscious and indeliberate.
When group members must interact with others, the group may undergo a kind of identity crisis.
Since the Moral Highway is shared by all the people of the earth, the Moral Highway itself inevitably
prompts such identity crises. Group identity crises correspond to challenges to individual moral
development (see Helping Rookie Drivers in the Tourist Info Center). The Moral Highway challenges
us to societal development as well as to personal development, calling upon groups to decenterto
recognize that reality is larger than their lifeworlds.218
Moral fear may drive groups to resist such decentering and to embed themselves more deeply in their
assumptions (and even their characteristics, e.g. race). Now prejudice becomes conscious and
deliberate, sometimes expressed in a fortress mentality. The other is no longer ignored; now he is
feared and hated as a threat. Such fear and hatred are irrational, and yet some attempt may be made to
rationalize them.219 David Cooper comments that too often, under the guise of promoting community
values, people adopt some sort of isms of exclusion, that is, a philosophy that allows [leaders] to
marginalize, exclude, oppress, or ignore those with whom they disagree.220 So moral bigotry can
become group policy, and an entire group can become a Road Menace.
215
See John Wall, "The Creative Imperative: Religious Ethics and the Formation of Life in Common." Journal of
Religious Ethics 33:1 (March 2005).
216
See Kegans analysis of subject and object in the Tourist Info Center.
217
See the discussion of Habermas on development in the Tourist Info Center.
218
Kegan and Beck stress the societal dimension of moral development.
219
It is instructive to examine resistance to health care reform in the United States (2009-2010) in the light of this pattern,
particularly since the intensity of anger and fear was so far out of proportion to the reasons offered to justify the resistance.
220
David E Cooper, Ethics for Professionals in a Multicultural World (Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004) p. 160.
Moral GPS
How can you respond to this challenge of exclusion on the Moral Highway?
249
Remember, always respect the moral autonomy of other persons, and your judgment will likely be
sound.
Step back from a dialog toward a decision to ask two basic questions: 1) Who are (should be) included
in this discussion as stakeholders in the decision? And 2) Are all those stakeholders represented in the
discussion, or have some been excluded? If so, raise that issue. Remember that any deliberate
excluding of stakeholders undermines the moral validity of any decision you make, and it undermines
the relationships among all the people involved.221
It might be tempting to identify the group as all humankind in order to prevent exclusions. While it
is a truism that the globe is shrinking, still, as Fiona Robinson says, we must be wary of
universalizing solutions in a world which is still fundamentally characterized by difference. 222 It
would be a mistake to focus on common human goods because either these goods would be so
general as to be irrelevant to the particular contexts of real persons and groups, or so embedded in a
particular culture as to skid into moral bigotry. (The rules of the road in the Moral GPS are not such a
common human good; rather they affirm the conditions that enable different people to choose their
own goods.)
The Moral Highway is one, but it is by no means uniform (no more than all vehicles on automobile
highways are uniform). The unity of the Moral Highway is a unity of diversity. Both unity and
diversity must be affirmed in order to foster inclusion and minimize exclusions.223
Patience and persistence.
Return to GPS
Guide to Step 2
The Moral Highway is constantly under construction, and it is we who build the highway as we travel
together on it. Some well-traveled stretches may appear to be finished, settled, agreed upon.
Nevertheless, new situations with their moral challenges may require some repair work or
improvement even in those smooth stretches. Then there are the paths less traveled, indeed in our
transitional era some parts may be no more clearly defined than was the Way West in the United States
of the late winter of 1846.224 It takes patience to travel the Moral Highwaypatience and courage.
The Moral GPS shows clearly that we are all in this together, that all people travel on the same Moral
Highway. That means all morality, all ethics, is relational. To speak of individual morality or
personal morality is therefore inaccurate. Individual moral autonomy is a person's free embrace of
life in the world with others, affirming not so much independence as interdependence. All morality is
social.
Yes, the Moral GPS may be the first place you have encounted the expression, Moral Highway. The
expression may be new, but the reality it expresses has been millenia in the making. Much of it was
constructed in isolated sections, designed (perhaps through trial and error) to meet the needs of
particular people at particular times.Thats why you have such a varied selection of moral theories.
Only in the last century or two have people recognized that all these isolated sections are part of the
same Moral Highway system. So it is for our time to recognize that the Moral Highway must meet the
221
Apropos of the health care reform effort in the United States (2009-2010), the application of this norm will be very
different depending on whether some are considered to have been excluded or to have excluded themselves. It is not
possible to force stakeholders to engage in communicative action. To exclude oneself from dialog and then to obstruct
action, however, is to act as a Road Menace.
222
Fiona Robinson, Globalizing Care (Westview, 1999), p. 7.
223
A helpful image of this unity is the quiltone, but composed of many different yet harmonious sections. See
http://inclusion.com/artquiltedcircle.html (accessed 12/27/2011)
224
See Wallace Stegner, The Gathering of Zion: The Story of the Mormon Trail (University of Nebraska Press, 1981)
Moral GPS
250
needs of all people and must take into account the people of all timesto build on the past and provide
for the future. The Moral GPS looks to Jrgen Habermas Discourse Ethics for a set of rules of the
road that promises to be adequate to this challenge.
Habermas himself readily admits that he is not the inventor of the core principles of Discourse
Ethics. Rather, the principle of moral universalism--i.e. mutual respect for moral autonomy that
requires the free assent of all affected by a decision--is the result of a historical process. The Moral
Highway is constructed through a gradual embodiment of moral principles in concrete forms of life,
so that it is a function of collective efforts and sacrifices made by sociopolitical movements.225 That
is to say, building the Moral Highway is a slow process, a continuing struggle.
The past century has proved only too painfully that trying to have a social morality that is not based
in this principle amounts to totalitarianism (politely identified in the Moral GPS as the Moral Bigot
type of Road Menace). It may seem much more efficient for one (or a few) who have a privileged
moral insight to impose that on others, perhaps by force. Those who champion such moral imperialism
argue that its alternative is the chaos of relativism. Obey them, and the result will be a morally stable,
secure society. Unfortunately, the cohesive principle of such a society is a monopoly of force (physical
or moral) in the ruler and universal fear in the ruled. One positive lesson of the past century, called by
some the American century, is that a morally stable, secure society must be held together by the
consent of the governed, free people freely embracing life in the world with others.
Mutual consent (mutual entrustment: see above) provides a shared moral direction for people. And it
does so without imposing a particular moral view on diverse people (the Standard Person Problem). It
amounts to mutual respect for moral autonomy, the principle on which the Moral GPS is based.
After all, a stable society is NOT a static one. A healthy society requires less conformity than
creativity. The stimulus for creativity is nothing other than what the Moral GPS calls goals and ideals
for all. As John Wall says, "The notion of a radically creative capability helps us see that communities
are, instead, ongoing historical forms that we are called to create and re-create ever anew, and that this
process should be guided at least in part by the ultimate poetic aim of a creatively reconciled
humanity."226 Ultimate poetic aim, Professor Wall said. Not by any means a short-term objective!
Earlier we puzzled over the problem of determining what is good for other persons who are incapable
of choosing for themselves or who want to make self-destructive or self-diminishing choices. What of
whole societies that seem to inhibit the moral autonomy of their people (most likely of their women)?
By what norm can we evaluate their inadequacy without imposing our own cultural standards?
The Rules of the Road provide a standard for evaluation. Based on those, we can recognize that some
societies place more constraints on freedom than others. Just as we can evaluate the individual rookie
driver, we can evaluate incomplete moral development in societies. We can also take modest steps
toward fostering moral developmentin individuals within those societies and perhaps in the societies
themselves. It is good to remember at this point that politics (along with economics) isat least in
theorya subdivision of ethics. What can we do politically to foster moral development (a sense of
interdependence and mutual empathy) among diverse societies?227
225
Nicholsen (MIT Press, 1990),
226
John Wall, "The Creative Imperative: Religious Ethics and the Formation of Life in Common." Journal of Religious
Ethics 33:1 (March 2005), p. 61.
227
Here the Moral GPS recognizes that concern for the moral quality of a society is essential to moral autonomy and
responsibility. Consider the concept collective responsibility http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/collective-responsibility
(accessed 10/13/2011), or the notion of sinful social structures (see John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, On Social
Moral GPS
251
Perhaps a counter-example will help show the way. The 2003 Iraq War could be viewed as an effort by
some who claimed a privileged moral insight to impose that on others by force. The result has been
anything but a morally stable and secure society.
The first consideration, according to the Moral GPS, is to let the other be other. Respect others moral
autonomy (persons or societies) even when that moral autonomy is in the process of development.
Next, recognize that the goals for all are shoulds. Attaining them may be beyond our immediate
ability. But those goals remain as normsprescribing not what we ought to accomplish now, but
rather what we ought to strive toward within the limits of our capability.228
Immediate, practical aims must be modest. The past century taught us that attempts to implement
grand moral visions actually resulted in the crushing of individual autonomy and the collapse of entire
societies. Small steps are more likely to be effective, provided they are in line with the ultimate poetic
aim of a harmonious Moral Highway Patience. Persistence. And, of course, hope.
D. Particular Goals
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents
Return to GPS
Guide to Step 2
Setting Particular Goals. The Moral GPS guide is focused on the moral quality of particular
goals. There is ample guidance available to you for effective goal-setting. A popular formula is
expressed in the acronym S.M.A.R.T.229 Goals should be:
o Specific. An effective goal is clearly defined and can readily be understood without confusion or
ambiguity.
o Measurable. There has to be a way to determine whether and to what degree you are attaining the
goal. With quantitative goals, that can be easy. But it is possible to measure, even quantify, goals
that are otherwise intangible. For instance, grading practices in college Humanities disciplines,
once notoriously subjective, can develop consistency through methods that are not objective
but intersubjective (holistic assessment). Measurability does not have to mean a reductionism that
ignores the intangible.
o Attainable. An effective goal must be achievable, not out of reach nor too easy to reach. If its out
of reach, frustration results. If its too easy to reach, the result is a so what? ho-hum.
o Relevant. Here the S.M.A.R.T. formula echoes the concern of the Moral GPS: your particular
goal should fit clearly within your overall goals, so that your efforts to attain the particular goal
advance you along the way of your basic life goals. If you are working with others, its important
to help everyone see the relation of their particular efforts to a larger shared vision or mission.
That not only helps to maintain consistency; it can be energizing.
o Timely. An effective goal has a clear time frame for attainment. That means a specific starting
point and a specific end point, perhaps with a pause for interim evaluation along the way for
slightly longer-term goals. Deadlines are great tools for maintaining focus. Otherwise pursuit of a
goal is postponed, interrupted, or enfeebled by procrastination.
Concern, 1987), that allow no one the luxury of being an innocent bystander See Thomas Merton, Conjectures of a
Guilty Bystander (Image, 1968).
228
See Klaus Gnther, The Sense of Appropriateness: Application Discourses in Morality and Law (State University of
New York Press, 1993), p. 213.
229
Doran, George T. "There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write managements's goals and objectives." and Miller, Arthur F. &
Cunningham, James A "How to avoid costly job mismatches" Management Review, 70:11 (Nov 1981). For a very
accessible summary of the S.M.A.R.T. formula, see http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/setting-smart-managementgoals.html. (accessed 12/27/2011)
Moral GPS
252
Be very careful in applying business planning models. It is easy to skid into patterns of strategic action,
that is, efforts aimed at success even through coercive or manipulative means. Resist the temptation to
exert power over others. Recognize the need to be in control as a symptom of dangerous moral
disorder. In a business context, such attitudes may seem desirablebut the long-term risks are very
serious. You can become a Road Menace, and you can wind up undermining not only your own basic
life-goals but the integrity of the Moral Highway itself. (Thats saying nothing of the risk to the
business itself: see the OW story.)
Return to GPS
Guide to Step 2
Good reasons. Moral thinking and moral dialog toward action typically have two phases:
1. setting particular goals, and
2. determining the most prudent means to attain those goals.
Ethical values and theories (good reasons) have a central role to play in both phases.
Take as an example the reform of health care insurance in the United States. (This is written in
December 2009.) Say that the goal is universal access to adequate health care. What good reasons can
a person bring forth to support the claim that this is a worthy goal? (The Natural Rights Theory could
serve here, particularly if you include positive rights like many ennumerated in the United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.) What is the most prudent way to attain this goal? (The
Market Theory plays a big role in this debate. Challenges to the adequacy of the Market Theory are
typically based in theories of Justice, or in the Rules of the Road questioning whether corporate power
over individuals is excessive.)
This second step in the Moral GPS will therefore require you to think ahead to the third step,
choosing route, so that you are equipped to provide good reasons to support your choice of a
particular goal.
In providing good reasons, remember that you are not defending your stand and trying to win over
others. That orientation to control and to win is the attitude of a Road Menace. Rather, you ought to be
engaging with others in an effort toward mutual understanding, what Habermas calls communicative
action (as opposed to strategic action which seeks to win.)230 Real achievement is ordinarily
something intersubjectivea we all win thing, not an I win, you lose thing.
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents
Return to GPS
Guide to Step 2
The Moral GPS is a discernment and decision procedure. Unlike decision procedures that treat a
decision as if its an isolated, one-time act, the Moral GPS affirms that no decision that you make can
be isolated from your moral career, your lifes journey on the Moral Highway.
The Go Home setting on the Moral GPS is a reminder for you to take stock of the impact of
particular decisions on your moral career. It is an opportunity to revisit your basic settings, your core
values and goals, and to evaluate where your current actions are taking you in relation to those settings.
Use it. Use My GPS as a kind of moral journal to serve as your home base on the Moral Highway.
230
Jrgen Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (MIT Press, 1990), p. 171.
Moral GPS
253
GPS MENU
GPS START
Guide to Step 3: Choose Route
Contents
Return to GPS
The major moral theories are summarized in the Tourist Information Center of the Rest Area. Further
insight into these theories is readily available through standard introductions to Ethics, for instance,
James Rachels The Elements of Moral Philosophy.231
However, the Moral GPS focus is on how you can use these theories in the effort to foster consensus
toward acting on an ethical challenge. You will need the theories for providing good reasons to support
your choice of a particular goal or to evaluate the worthiness of alternate goals. You will also need the
theories to evaluate the prudence and moral appropriateness of alternate ways to attain a worthy goal.
In order to make use of moral theories, it is important that you understand How Routes Work on the
Moral Highway. See the discussion About Alternate Routes in the Tourist Information Center. There
is a special logic at work in using moral theories, the logic of the balance of opposites. That is
something you are not likely to find in typical introductions to ethics.
Moral theories cannot by themselves justify a decision. The norm for decision-making is dialog among
morally autonomous people toward consensus on a course of action. The role of moral theories in this
dialogue is to raise questions and to offer insights that appeal to the reason and freedom of others,
moving them toward mutual understanding and perhaps consensus.232 If a person seeks to impose
moral principles as if they were free-standing and absolute, that person risks violating the mutual
respect for moral autonomy which is the foundational principle of the Moral Highway. (That is, youve
got a Road Menace.)
Balance of Opposites: How Routes Work on the Moral Highway
Return to GPS
The Moral GPS recognizes that in evaluating alternatives a special logic applies, the logic of the
balance of opposites. See About Alternate Routes in the Tourist Information Center.
The logic of the balance of opposites is ancient, older than Aristotles syllogisms.
The most widely recognized representation of this logic is the Chinese symbol of
the relation of yin and yang. Ancient Chinese thinkers saw universal harmony in
the dynamic balance of opposite forces: light and dark, male and female, positive
and negative. These forces counterbalance each other, so that as one reaches
dominance (its widest part in the symbol) it both contains and generates its
opposite. Were you to draw the diameter of the symbol and rotate it, there would
always be equal amounts of light and dark along the diameter. This logic governs
the universe and human life, even the ways of the mind. So, for instance, the Tao
Te Ching says that Not-knowing is true knowledge.233
The fifteenth-century German thinker Nicholas of Cusa used the term coincidentia oppositorum
(coincidence or coinherence of opposites) for the logic required to think about ultimate realities.234 His
231
Fourth Edition (McGraw-Hill, 2003).

See Jrgen Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber
Nicholsen (MIT Press, 1990) p. 94.
233
Stephen Mitchell, Tao Te Ching: A New English Version (Harper and Row, 1988), poem 71.
234
For a summary of Cusas ideas, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cusanus
(accessed 12/27/2011). For a translation of primary sources, see J. Hopkins, (tr.), Complete Philosophical and Theological
Treatises of Nicholas of Cusa, (Banning, 2001). For an accessible translation of De Docta Ignorantia, see H. Lawrence
Bond, Nicholas of Cusa: Selected Spiritual Writings (Paulist 1997).
232
Moral GPS
254
most famous work, De Docta Ignorantia (On Learned Ignorance), applied that logic to thinking about
God, the created universe, the mind, and Christ. Challenged concerning the orthodoxy of his thinking,
Cusanus then demonstrated in Apologia Doctae Ignorantiae235 that the logic of the coincidence of
opposites is at work throughout the Christian tradition, from the New Testament through the Fathers
(particularly Augustine) and the medievals (particularly Bonaventure), to his own time.
This logic is not the same as the Golden Mean espoused by Aristotle, by Confucius, and in
Ecclesiastes (Do not be too righteous.... Do not be too wicked.... Eccl. 7:16-17). That seeks a stable,
unitary middle way by avoiding opposites, neither too hot nor too cold. It is a balance like standing on
concrete in the middle of the road: static. The Golden Mean provides a sense of security and
consistency. Its crash risk is the One-Way Driver syndrome, if you forget that other persons middle
way may be different from yours.
By contrast, the balance of opposites embraces opposites and finds balance in the creative tension
between them. This logic recognizes that you cant make sense of lived reality without affirming both
opposites. Hence the rules of this logic:
1. The two opposite claims may both be false.
2. Neither of the opposites is really true without the other.
3. Therefore both must be true at the same time if either is to be affirmed.
The balance of this logic is like riding a bicycle: dynamic. It is also just as challenging as a bicycle to
one who has not learned balance. It does not provide the static security of the Golden Mean, but it
opens the mind to new and creative insight and enables people to communicate more easily across
cultural differences. Its crash risk is a form of decision paralysis, moral relativism, if you forget that
beyond the tension of opposites you have to determine what we shall do.
Side Roads
Return to GPS
If you are familiar with standard textbooks on ethics or moral philosophy, this section of the Moral
GPS may puzzle you. After all, most ethics texts pay a great deal of attention to issues like absolutism
and relativism, subjectivism and objectivism, freedom and determinism.236
While these issues are of critical importance as presuppositions of ethical theories (i.e., they belong
largely in the domain entitled metaethics), they are less important in the domains of normative ethics,
particularly applied ethics. The Moral GPS is applied ethics. These issues, since they do not directly
affect efforts toward consensus on action, are only marginally relevant for driving on the Moral
Highway. Thats why they are termed Side roads.
Areas to Avoid
Here the Moral GPS may appear very different from the common type of moral upbringing that lays
greatest stress on negative norms (e.g. most of the Ten Commandments). The Moral GPS is a positive
ethic. For that reason, negative normswhile they are not ignoredare not given primary importance
on the Moral Highway.
235
Nicholas of Cusa's Debate with John Wenck: A Translation and an Appraisal of de Ignota Litteratura and Apologia
Doctae Ignorantiae, trans. Jasper Hopkins (Arthur J. Banning Press, 1984).
236
For instance, James Rachels The Elements of Moral Philosophy (McGraw-Hill 2003) devotes three of its fourteen
chapters to these issues (chapters 2, 3, and 9).
Moral GPS
255
GPS MENU
Guide to Step 4: Go!
GPS START
Contents
Return to GPS
The Norm for Making Good Decisions

Focus on Action
Weighing conflicting norms and values
Helping One-way Drivers
Managing the Road Menace
D. Decide!
The Norm for Making Good Decisions
The basic model or norm for moral decision in the Moral GPS is dialog toward consensus on action.
According to this model, moral claims are events of dialog or discourse in the context of human
relationships that are oriented toward action.
Obviously, many decisions cannot be made through consensus. Some decisions are individual,
involving others only remotely (hence those decisions have few if any stakeholders other than the
decider). Often conditionsfor instance, the need to act swiftlyprevent dialog.
However, dialog toward consensus remains the norm. Actual decision by consensus is the ideal. The
norm requires, at the very least, a decision that is understood as reasonable by all stakeholders.
That is a should, a hypothetical moral obligation to carry out a course of action in general, without
considering all circumstances of a situation. It is a Prima Facie Duty: a positive moral norm that
makes a real moral claim, before actual conditions are taken into account. Conditions may demand that
you depart from that norm, but any departure from a prima facie duty requires good reasons to justify
it. Moreover, you then ought to do your best to alter the conditions that prevent you from observing the
norm. You cant just shrug and say its unrealistic without skidding toward being a Road Menace.
In November 2009, President Obamas visit to China made it clear to all that international relationships
are reciprocal among equals. The older model of one nation having control over others is dissolving.
Hence dialog toward consensus is a model for international as well as interpersonal relations.
The hierarchical model of deciding is less and less appropriate, given stakeholder theory and the
affirmation of moral autonomy for all persons. Hierarchical decidingvery common in institutions
may be justified by circumstances, but it ought not be taken for granted as an ethically justifiable norm.
Some circumstances may demand making a decision for another, in effect pre-empting that persons
moral autonomy. See the discussion of paternalism in the Supplement.
Moral GPS
256
A. Eyes on the Road.

1. Should and Ought: Application discourse.
2. Including Stakeholders in a Decision
Return to GPS
Guide to Step 4
1. Should and Ought: Application discourse.

a. The Problem
A crucial issue in applied ethics is the distinction between general norms and the demands of particular
persons and situations.The Moral GPS insists that BOTH these dimensions must be given full
consideration in any adequate decision process. If you ignore or downplay either dimension, you are
just about guaranteed to crash. If you focus on general norms and ignore particular circumstances,
youre likely to be on the side road of absolutism with its risk of becoming a Road Menace of the
moral bigot variety. If you focus on the particular and ignore general norms, guided only by your own
immediate feelings, youre likely to be on the side road of relativism with its risk of becoming a
Road Menace of the unethical egoist variety.
The latter risk is comparatively obvious. The former risk is less obvious. Only in the past few decades
have shown just how serious is the risk of ignoring particulars in the name of general principles.
The Holocaustindeed the entire experience of mid-20th-century totalitarian regimes in Germany and
Russiashocked the worlds moral consciousness. How could human persons act in such a way
toward other human persons?
Hanna Arendt coined the phrase the banality of evil to probe the cause of such behavior. She
observed that Adolph Eichmann, known as the architect of the Holocaust, never understood what he
was doing. He understood in principle, but Arendt pointed to his sheer thoughtlessness.237 The
thoughtlessness was specifically a lack of appropriate moral judgment, which for Arendt implies
evaluating his decisions and actions from the perspective of their stakeholdersin Eichmanns case, of
his victims. Arendt distinguished determinate judgment (considering particulars only as instances of
universal, abstract norms) and reflective judgment (considering first the particulars in themselves
and only then arriving at a judgment that could be justified in terms of general norms).238 Eichmann
had no lack of determinate judgment. His thoughtlessness, the root of so much evil, consisted in a
lack of reflective judgment. He was thoughtless regarding the particular people affected by his actions.
Earlier, in her analysis of totalitarianism, Arendt recognized ideology as the matrix for totalitarianism.
Ideologies always assume that one idea is sufficient to explain everything in the development from
the premise, and that no experience can teach anything because everything is comprehended in this
consistent process of logical deduction.239 Totalitarian thinking (like determinate judgment) ignores
particular people and their needs and concerns.
Nevertheless, this kind of thinking (or thoughtlessness in Arendts terms) persists in some circles.
For instance, some consider Austin Fagotheys Right and Reason a common sense ethics, a
thoroughly competent book in the philosophy of Ethics240 Yet Fagothey considers conscience (moral
judgment) a syllogistic deduction, wherein the moral subject moves from a major premise (a moral
237
Hanna Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963), quoted in Cooper, David E., Ethics for Professionals in a Multicultural
World (Pearson, 2004), p. 80.
238
Hanna Arendt, by Majid Yar, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/. Accessed 8 April
2010
239
Hanna Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (Harcourt, 1951), p. 470.
240
See http://www.marianland.com/tan_new_2000_008.html. (accessed 08 23 2011)
Moral GPS
257
principle such as Lying is wrong) through a minor premise (Action X involves lying) to a practical
conclusion (Action X is wrong)241 What an excellent example of determinate judgment!
Such thoughtlessness can result in puzzling moral decisions. Take, for instance, the May 14, 2010,
action of the bishop of Phoenix, Arizona, condemning the judgment of Sr. Margaret McBride,
administrator of St. Josephs Hospital and Medical Center, who permitted abortion of an eleven-weekold fetus when hospital physicians determined that the pregnancy seriously threatened the life of the
mother. While Sr. Margarets judgment resulted in the mothers survival, the bishops stance would
likely have resulted in death for both mother and fetus. A consequentialist would see irony in the
bishops statement that The Catholic Church will continue to defend life...without compromise242 It
is significant that the statement of the diocese consisted of logical deduction from abstract norms
(Arendts determinate judgment) and the statement of the hospital focused on the complexity and
serious risk of the patients condition (Arendts reflective judgment.).243
In the Moral GPS, general and abstract norms are categorized as should. Real moral obligation
(ought) rises only when the particular conditions and persons involved in a decision are taken fully
into account. The Moral GPS insists on the distinction between should and ought in order to
ensure that you avoid the serious moral crash of actually doing evil while intending to do right. Keep
your eyes on the road.
b. The Distinction between Should and Ought.
The problem involved here is posed in the writing of Thomas Aquinas. He describes conscience as
the application of our knowledge to what we doregarding present action, in considering future
actions, and in evaluating past actions.244 The complexity of such application is evident when Aquinas
says that while he holds the natural law to be universal, there may be legitimate differences in
particular norms and there may be circumstances where it is no longer appropriate to apply a general
principle.245 According to Aquinas, then, conscience is no mere logical deduction. The late 17th century
English proverb captures Aquinas insight: circumstances alter cases.
Ethical discussions often start with the question, what shall we (or I) do? However, a prior question
is essential: what is going on here?246 Responsible ethical action begins with interpretation of the
situation in which you are called on to act, with all its participants, circumstances, limits, and
opportunities. In effect, the situation addresses you, and you are called upon to respond in a way that
best fits the demand of the situation. This is by no means a situationist or relativist approach,
because included in the situation are the societal and personal norms held by the persons involved (the
should). However, the aim (ought) of the ethics of responsibility is neither the right nor the
good considered in the abstract. It is the fitting, the appropriate in the particular situation. Thats
why the Moral GPS insists that you keep your eyes on the road.
241
Austin Fagothey, Right and Reason (Mosby, 1959), p. 209. Even Fagothey qualified this exclusion of circumstances in
later editions of this book. See the review by John J. Conley, Faith and Reason, Fall 1994.
242
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/05/15/20100515phoenix-catholic-nun-abortion.html.
(accessed 08 23 2011). The bishops statement is an excellent example of the one-way driver excluding consideration of
alternate routes.
243
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2010/05/14/20100514stjoseph0515bishop.html. (Accessed 08 23
2011).
244
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 79, a 13.
245
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 94, a 4 and a 5. See http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2094.htm (accessed
01/11/2012).
246
See H. Richard Niebuhr, The Responsible Self (Harper and Row, 1963), and James M. Gustafson and James T. Laney,
On Being Responsible, (Harper and Row, 1968).
Moral GPS
258
Ethicists frequently use a distinction articulated by W. D. Ross between prima facie duties and
actual or definitive duties.247 General norms (should) do oblige. But that obligation is at first
glance, before particular circumstances are considered. Circumstances may require (ought) that you
depart from the general norm to carry out the actual or definitive duty. However, that departure must
be justified. If you depart from the general norm, the burden of proof is on you. The Moral GPS says
that prima facie duties have the moral right of way.
Another way of describing this distinction, using more conversational idiom, is the difference between
considering a norm ceteris paribus248, other things being equal and so universal (should), and all
things considered, including particular circumstances of a decision (ought).249
Remember that the should / ought way of distinguishing these levels is unique to the Moral GPS.
Another view uses two sense of ought: prima facie ought (reflecting W. D. Ross) and ought on
balance, considering all relevant aspects of a situation250
Building upon Jrgen Habermas Discourse Ethics, Klaus Gnther distinguishes justification
discourse, producing norms valid under unchanging circumstances (should), from application
discourse, norms appropriate considering all the circumstances (ought).251 His distinction is explicitly
parallel to those of Searle and W. D. Ross. He develops Rosss concern that departure from a general
norm requires justification, noting that in situations where general norms conflict, people will have to
identify criteria for weighing the different norms in order to resolve the conflict. That weighing is built
into the Moral GPS as part of steering carefully and trying to stay together.
The Ethics of Care provides another basis for the distinction between should and ought. This
approach focuses attention on the relationships between a problem and its context and particularities,
rather than preoccupation with abstracting a problem away from its context.252 This attention does not
exclude general principles (i.e. it is not a form of relativism), but such principles are recognized as
structural conditions of relationshiops within the situation. Ethics is less a logic of principles and
actions than a dynamic of interpersonal relationships responding to problems.
c. Should, Ought, and the Moral GPS
The distinction between should and ought permeates the operation of the Moral GPS.
An added dimension to the distinction is the concept of alternate routes in moral deliberation. The
logic governing this concept is different, and richer, than any deductive reasoningit is the logic of
balance of opposites, maintaining a fruitful tension that draws from the strengths of abstract principles
and values while compensating for their weaknesses (crash risks) by drawing on the strengths of
contrasting principles and values. This concept would seem a muddle to a solitary decision-maker
using only Aristotelian logic. But for the Moral GPS, decisions are a matter of dialog toward consensus
among persons committed to action. Alternate Routes provide for a balance of mutually affirming
complementarity253 in such dialog, while reminding each and all that I could be wrong.
247
see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-moral/#2.5 (accessed 01/11/2012), and Ross, W. D., The Right and the
Good (Hackett, 1988).
248
OK, so this term began in a Latin conversation.
249
John R. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. (Cambridge University Press, 1969), 179ff. This
distinction is also used by Kurt Baier, Moral Point of View (McGraw Hill, 1965).
250
Kurt Baier, Moral Point of View (McGraw Hill, 1965), p. 103.
251
Klaus Gnther, The Sense of Appropriateness: Application Discourses in Morality and Law, trans. John Farrell (SUNY
Press, 1993), pp204ff.
252
Fiona Robinson, Globalizing Care (Westview, 1999), pp. 128-129
253
Ewert H. Cousins uses this expression to interpret the relation of opposites in coincidentia oppositorum. Bonaventure
and the Coincidence of Opposites (Franciscan Herald Press, 1978), p. 20.
Moral GPS
259
2. Including Stakeholders in a Decision

It would obviously be impossible to include all stakeholders in every decision-making process. Two
simple criteria provide a rule of thumb for identifying stakeholders who ought to be included in the
process.
First, how closely involved is a person in the issue to be decided? In a personnel decision, for
instance, an employee whose job may be changed is very closely involved, whereas an
employee in a distant field office is not.
Second, how seriously is a person likely to be affected by the decision? A neighbor whose
health may be injured by waste from a proposed manufacturing process has a very serious
stake in the decision, whereas a mailroom clerk who may need to change post-box tags for a
new program has much less at stake, even though she is more closely involved in the
manufacturing firm.
People closely involved in the issue to be decided ought to be included in the decision process, even if
they are not all that seriously affected by the decision. Likewise those likely to be seriously affected by
the decision ought to be included in the decision process, even if they are only remotely involved in the
issue to be decided. To the extent that future generations may be affected by our decisions, they are
stakeholders and their interests ought to be considered in any responsible decision.
A dramatic example of what can happen when a corporation fails to include stakeholders in decisions
is the case of Anderson v Pacific Gas & Electric, otherwise known as the Erin Brockovich Story.254
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents

Return to GPS
Guide to Step 4
This part of the Moral GPS concentrates on situations where you have sole responsibility for making a
decision. If the decision-situation you face involves other people (stakeholders), you ought to include
those people in your decision process (see above). That means you not only have to steer carefully;
youve got to try to stay together.
If the road ahead is clear and straight (that is, if its entirely clear what you ought to do in a situation),
be grateful and drive on. You hardly have to make a decision. You can rely on habit, almost like being
on moral autopilot.
Its the road hazards that require thoughtful decision-making, particularly moral dilemmas. Elsewhere
the Moral GPS provides ways of resolving dilemmas. Fortunately you alone are the decision-maker in
this case, so you can refer to your own hierarchy of values and your awareness of moral theories, their
crash risks, and alternate routes (see Step 3 in the Moral GPS). These insights can help you resolve
dilemmas.
But further, you ought to aim for fairness or impartiality in your decision even though there are no
other persons directly involved. That means, first, that you ought to consider the situation thoroughly,
so your understanding of whats going on is complete. Second, be sure that the values and norms you
intend to apply really fit the situation (see the discussion of should and ought above).255
254
http://www.lawbuzz.com/famous_trials/erin_brockovich/erin_brockovich_ch1.htm (Accessed 08/23/2011)

Klaus Gnther, The Sense of Appropriateness: Application Discourses in Morality and Law, trans. John Farrell (State
University of New York Press, 1993), p. 200, the criteria of completeness and appropriateness.
255
Moral GPS

Focus on Action
Weighing conflicting norms and values
Helping One-way Drivers
Managing the Road Menace
260
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents
Return to GPS
Guide to Step 4
Focus on Action
The Moral GPS is a positive and practical ethic, affirming rules of the road that are grounded in the
Discourse Ethics of Jrgen Habermas. On the Moral Highway, you have to keep moving. The purpose
of argument, communicative action, is to coordinate plans of action consensually. Argument is
oriented toward rationally motivating other persons by good reasons, respecting others moral
autonomy while at the same time reaching toward action.256 On the Moral Highway, action by
consensus is the ideal; the norm is action which is at least understood as reasonable by all stakeholders.
On the Moral Highway, opposing viewpoints or taking sides is NOT a useful approach to
dialog.257 The Moral Highway is NOT a debating club. Debate allows the luxury of affirming and
defending ones own position without really taking others positions seriously, for the decision rests
with a third party who determines a winner and loser. On the Moral Highway, thats like having an
accident investigator determining who caused a collision.This is a situation to AVOID, not to foster.
Nevertheless, it can be useful to analyze opposing arguments in order to understand the assumptions on
which they rest, their crash risks, and alternate routes. (See choose route in the Moral GPS.) This
approach does not try to win a debate, but to aid all parties in dialog to step back from their positions to
understand themselves, thereby better to understand one another.
Weighing conflicting values and norms
Guide to Step 4
When you are the sole decision-maker, you can appeal to your hierarchy of values in order to weigh
which value or norm should have priority in resolving a dilemma. But in group moral discourse, a
personal hierarchy of values would be of little helpunless all members of the group just happened to
share the same values. Further, most traditional ways of resolving dilemmas assume that all persons in
the deciding group share the same basic moral culture, and that can no longer be assumed.258
It is important to recognize the philosophic problem of weighing moral norms against each other.259
Without a commonly accepted criterion, on what basis is one value or theory to be given more weight
than another? Remember, though, that the Moral GPS is a practical ethic. Persons communicate
rationally in order to arrive at consensus (or at least mutual understanding) in regard to a course of
action. Without a priori criteria for weighing values and norms that conflict, you still have the
reasonableness and moral autonomy of the people involved. People are capable of fair, impartial
judgment, if you draw upon their moral autonomy.260 The criterion for weighing, then, shifts from
256
Nicholsen (MIT Press, 1990) p. 58.
257
See the Opposing Viewpoints series published by Cengage Gale and the Taking Sides series by McGraw-Hill.
258
For that reason, Aristotelian phronesis is no longer useful in a multicultural context. See Klaus Gnther, The Sense of
Appropriateness: Application Discourses in Morality and Law, trans. John Farrell (State University of New York Press,
1993), p. 199.
259
Gnther, part 3, chapter 1.
260
Remember that some people have yet to develop full moral autonomy. Gnthers criteria for weighing links to
Kohlbergs Stage Six (see Gnther, pp. 133-34. You may have to help rookie drivers.
Moral GPS
261
261
objective content to fair, impartial process. First, the perspectives of all stakeholders ought be
considered. Second, all conditions and possibilities of the decision situation ought to be considered.
Third, participants in the discourse ought to exercise judgment262 regarding the fit of norms to the
particulars of the situation (What set of norms works together to address the situations challenge?
What set of norms best protects the values and norms at stake in the situation? What set of norms
promises the best [or least harmful] result?).
The weighing of conflicting norms, then, is not a matter of placing competing norms on some sort of
objective scale. Rather, it is a process of rational communication among morally autonomous
persons striving to exercise impartial, reflective judgment.
Guide to Step 4
It would be nice if everyone on the Moral Highway was an expert driver: morally mature, having
attained a high degree of moral autonomy. But that is not the case. Many, perhaps most of the people
traveling the Highway are rookie drivers to some extent, needing to grow morally.
Psychological theories of Moral Development can be of great help in understanding the different levels
of moral maturity you are likely to encounter on the Moral Highway (and in yourself). These theories
can also provide tools that may foster moral development in yourself and others.
This section of the Moral GPS includes a brief summary of a strategy to help rookie drivers to grow.
A much more extensive discussion of various theories of moral development is in the Tourist
Information Center. Take the time to become familiar with these theories, for they may be your most
important tools as you seek to lead a diverse group toward action.
Helping the One-way Driver
Guide to Step 4
The one-way driver either cannot understand or cannot respect alternate routes to his moral theory. He
is unreflective about the assumptions underlying his moral dogma. In effect, the one-way driver is
embedded in his limited worldview. That is, he thinks of his view as the correct or the only way
things are. To the extent that his embeddedness is unconscious, you may have a type of rookie
driver who needs to be drawn to a higher order of consciousness (see Kegans theory in the Rest
Area). The capacity for seeing things from other peoples points of view is a principal component in
moral maturity, called decentering or perspective-taking. You need to help the one-way driver to
decenter, to open his awareness to others in empathy.
However, if the one-way driver can understand but refuses to respect others points of view, youre
dealing with a Road Menace. Thats another kind of problem altogether.
Managing the Road Menace.

Managing the Unethical Egoist.
Addressing Moral Fear
What if an entire society becomes a Road Menace?
Resisting the Road Menace
Guide to Step 4
Return to GPS
The Moral GPS speaks of two principal types of Road Menace: the unethical egoist and the moral
bigot.
261
Gunther, pp. 240-42

See Hannah Arendts concept of reflective judgment above.
262
Moral GPS
262
It is not terribly difficult to spot a Road Menace. Even little children recognize a bad person as
someone who lacks consideration for other people or who uses other people for his own ends.263 The
challenge is to move forward toward decision by consensus without the Road Menace blocking the
road or causing a major collision. (The greater challenge is to help the Road Menace become a safe
driver on the Moral Highway.)
Managing the Unethical Egoist.
Guide to Step 4
The egoist Road Menace is motivated primarily, if not exclusively, by narrow self-interest. That means
any effort to manage him must appeal to his self-interest, at least initially. Typically, such an egoist is
focused on short-term personal goals. He may respond to suggestions regarding longer-term
consequences, either larger goals for himself or the negative effects of his alienating himself from
others involved in the decision. Remember that this kind of Road Menace is likely aware of his own
selfishness, and may even flaunt it. Direct, negative challenge will only intensify his egoism. The best
option is to draw him into awareness of others and possible relationship with othersan invitation
rather than a reproof.
The egoist is likely to be operating at a low level of moral development, instrumental relativism or
Kohlbergs Stage Two. In other words, you really face a particularly obnoxious type of rookie driver.
Use the methods of helping rookie drivers and seek to foster the persons development of genuine
moral autonomy.
Addressing Moral Fear
The Moral Bigot, unlike the Unethical Egoist, is not aware of the negativity of his stance. He is more
likely to consider himself a besieged fortress of righteousness amid the heathen and corrupt world. For
all his positive claims to the right and the holy, his stance is probably rooted in unquestioned beliefs
that are not so positive. He acts out of moral fear, a sense of losing moral bearings in the face of
different perspectives, a sense of moral disintegration as the norms and values in which he is
embedded are subjected to question.
Given the transitional and multicultural quality of our times, such moral fear is entirely understandable.
It is also widespread. But it, too, is a symptom of inadequate moral development. See Kegans and
Becks theories for insight into the nature of embeddedness and the trauma of transition for persons so
embedded in limited lifeworlds. (Remember Kegans observation that as a society we are in over our
heads regarding moral development that is adequate to the challenge of our time.264)
Religious Moral Fear
Guide to Step 4
What kind of worldview lies beneath moral fear and the Moral Bigots fortress mentality? A prime
example is theapocalyptic attitude,265 a form of Christian belief that gives major emphasis to the
Book of Revelation. The basic elements of this worldview are at work in many religous and cultural
contexts, so this example can serve as a model for understanding the roots of moral fear generally.
The apocalyptic attitude understands all of life and all of history as a conflict between the Good who
are loyal to God and powers of evil at work in the world. Evil always seems to have the upper hand
(hence the siege or fortress mentality). Good people must strive to keep themselves pure from
the world until the End, when the power of God will intervene to crush evil and indeed destroy the
world and history, replacing this world with a new, Good world just for the few pure Good souls.
263
Robert Cole, The Moral Intelligence of Children (Plume/ Penguin-Putnam, 1997), pp. 21-30.
Robert Kegan, In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life (Harvard University Press, 1994).
265
See the discussion of Time earlier in the Operators Manual.
264
Moral GPS
263
In this ultimate siege mentality, those who consider themselves the Good see anyone who differs from
them not only as a threat, but as Antichrist, as demonic. Therefore the Good must strive to discredit,
crush, or destroy them. Obviously that attitude can lead people to perpetrate profound evil in the name
of God. That is the tragic irony of the apocalyptic attitude.
A corollary of that attitude is the belief that removing evil is all that needs to be done; good will
then triumph.266 Hence the apocalyptic attitude involves an ethic that is essentially negative. Moral
effort means to strive against what is different, identified by terms like Satan, paganism, secularism,
liberalism, multiculturalism, and the likeall wrapped together as equally evil, for all imply
questioning or disintegration of the norms and values in which the believer is embedded.
The moral fear of the apocalyptic attitude is more dangerous than that linked only to cultural
disorientation, for the apocalypticist feels justified by God and so may not be capable of
communicative action. Any who oppose him opposes God. Attempts to enlarge the apocalypticists
awareness may be futile until his program leads to a catastrophe obvious enough to awaken even him.
(Arthur Millers play The Crucible267 dramatizes this trajectory.) Your strategy may have to be to
quarantine this type of Road Menace and then resist him.
However, self-critical dialogue may be possible with an apocalyptic-minded Christian. The invitation
to enlarge his perspective will have to come from someone who shares his core beliefs. Perhaps he can
be led to recognize that apocalyptic expectation is only one of at least two major eschatologies (forms
of hope) in the Bible, and indeed a later one (first seen in the sixth to fifth centuries BCE). The other,
based in the sense of God as universal, is expressed in Genesis and Exodus (the Old Epic tradition),
Isaiah and then in New Testament writings like Colossians, Ephesians and the Gospel of John. It is a
hope of universal reconciliation. A Christian recognition of this form of hope leads to welcoming
differences rather than fearing them. It underlies a positive moral effort that seeks to realize an
underlying divine design bringing about some kind of universal community. What is important for the
apocalypticist to see is that these two forms of hope are in creative tension within the Bible, each
enabling the other to subject itself to critical questioning that actually can deepen faith.268
The capacity to question himself, of course, is precisely what the Road Menace lacks. If you are able
gently to open this capacity, overcoming his moral fear, you will have removed the menace from the
Road Menace and invited him toward developing true moral autonomy. Hes ready to be treated as a
rookie driver.
Racism
Guide to Step 4
Another worldview that builds on moral fear is racism. The philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre wrote a
penetrating analysis of the racist attitude in his 1945 Portrait of an Antisemite,269 at a time when the
horrors unleashed by Nazi racism were just becoming fully known. Sartre recognized the moral fear of
the anti-Semite as a yearning for certainty, the impermeability of stone, the flip side of a fear of
oneself and a fear of truth, for real truth is not absolute certitude but a thing of indefinite
approximation.(274) [Remember, I could be wrong.] The racists moral fear leads him to choose
hatred, the emotional state that he loves, for then he need face neither himself nor the truth. His
entire energy is turned outward, negatively.
This apocalyptic mistake may explain the George W. Bush administrations lack of an adequate post-invasian and
exit strategy in the second Iraq war.
267
Bantam, 1954
268
see Leonard Bowman, Hope Against Hope: Toward Hope Beyong Hope (iUniverse, 2001).
269
In Walter Kaufmann, Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre (World, 1956), pp. 270-87.
266
Moral GPS
264
A racist will deny his racism, and he will offer reasons and evidence that purport to justify his attitude
toward the hated race. Sartre noted that the justifications offered by antisemites were invariably absurd.
But that makes no difference:
Do not think antisemites are completely unaware of the absurdity of these answers. They know
that their statements are empty and contestable; but it amuses them to make such statements: it is
their adversary whose duty it is to choose his words seriously because he believes in words. They
have a right to play. They even like to play with speech because by putting forth ridiculous
reasons they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutor; they are enchanted with their
unfairness because for them it is not a question of persuading by good argument but of
intimidating or disorienting. (275)
Rational argument, therefore, will have no effect on this kind of Road Menace. His certainty is as
absolute as it is unwarranted. The more he is pressed, the fiercer grows his language, the more absurd
his claims, and the more extreme his hatred.270
One cannot be an anti-Semite alone, Sartre observes.(276) This type of Road Menace needs an
audience, just as the schoolyard bully needs collaborators egging him on. He identifies with the group,
the average or normal people. He needs to consider himself so, for the strength of his claims rests on
the support of the like-minded group. Hence this type of Road Menace leads to the question, what if an
entire society becomes a Road Menace? Or a substantial part of a society?
It will not be enough for you to separate such a Road Menace from his audience, for he will maintain
his impermeability as long as he believes he has the support of his group. Only two things will open
him to self-questioning. First, the group may reject him if his behavior becomes embarrassing.
However, that may drive him to further extremes. It is only when the group identity itself begins to
fragment that any deep self-questioning is possible for him. Sobering is the realization that the racism
Sartre addressed came unraveled only through the most terrible war yet in human history, and that
vestiges of it still survive.
What if an entire society becomes a Road Menace?
Guide to Step 4
The term Road Menace has been applied to individuals for the most part in the Moral GPS. What
happens if an entire societyor a significant group within a society--behaves like a Road Menace?
It is important once again to distinguish between people whose awareness is simply limited (a rookie
driver) from those who are aware of others perspectives and deliberately set out to thwart them.
A society with limited awareness is called a traditional society, one in which people are so
embedded in norms and assumptions that those are taken as all of reality. Typically such a society is
isolated from contact with the rest of the world. The norms and assumptions therefore remain
unquestioned, for there is nothing to enable people to step outside of them to see them as limited. But
as the world has changed especially over the past century and a half, the processes at work in the world
have exposed such societies to different ways of being, sparking the process of moral development (see
Kegans discussion of development).
But something can happen that thwarts the process of societal moral development. Critical questioning
can be suppressed and dissent persecuted. Then the society (or its leaders) are behaving like a Road
Menace, and instead of being traditional the society drifts toward becoming totalitarian. If this
happens within a sub-society, where leadership seeks to insulate its members from the larger society,
270
It is worrisome in the United States of 2011 to notice how closely the reasoning and language of some public figures
corresponds to the pattern Sartre has described.
Moral GPS
265
271
the result may be a religious sect that may even become a cult. It may also be a political grouping
that refuses to engage in communicative action with those who do not share its specific tenets.272 In
such a society, leadership will attempt to exclude influences of larger world either by rigid censorship
(more and more difficult to achieve given todays information technology) or (capitalizing on moral
fear) by demonizing anything that differs from the societys dogma.273 The latter is harder to deal with,
for it requires changing peoples perspectives on a wide scale (e.g. from apocalyptic toward
reconciliation). Combining moral fear with a siege mentality can make a group susceptible to irrational
fears and conspiracy theories, leading to group paranoia and ultimately to violence.274
The societal Road Menace actively excludes people from decision making, either by oppression
(violence or threat of violence) or by discrimination (refusal to respect differences among people). A
society may be a Road Menace of the Unethical Egoist type or of the Moral Bigot type. An Unethical
Egoist society oppresses part of its people (often the largest part) in order to benefit one person
(despotism) or a few privileged persons or families (oligarchy). A Moral Bigot society imposes its
values and culture on diverse people in the society, perhaps by requiring adherence to an established
religion, by racial discrimination, or perhaps by enforcing cultural conformity even through reeducation. It is possible to look on the British Raj in Indiathe target of Mahatma Gandhis
nonviolent resistanceas a combination of both types.
What can you do if you find yourself in a societal Road Menace? First, if its a sub-society, separate
yourself from it. In any case, you know that societal exclusions should be corrected. What you ought to
do, though, is limited to what you reasonably can do. Most often changing the society is beyond your
immediate reach. What remains, then, is to resist.
Resisting the Road Menace
Guide to Step 4
The most basic form of resistance to a societal Road Menace is simply to refrain from cooperating with
societally-imposed exclusions. An excellent example of such non-cooperation is the behavior of the
Danish people under Nazi occupation during World War II.275 Noncooperation means not only
passively avoiding action. It also means acting in ways that ignore the expectations of the societal
Road Menace. That involves risk, of course. Think of the pressures that constrained even fair-minded
citizens of the southern United States in the 1950s to continue racial segregation.
The next form of resistance is to use the Law to resist exclusions and injustices in a society. This
strategy corresponds to Kohlbergs Stage Five of moral development, working within the established
structures of society to correct a violation of the moral social contract. The first step is to determine
what must be done to correct the moral violation. In other words, first seek justice; then use the Law to
work toward that objective. A notable example of this strategy is the work of Morris Dees of the
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). In the late 1960s, the intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was
thwarted in some Southern states by ingrained custom and by Ku Klux Klan violence toward
Sect refers to a group (usually religious) that sets itself apart from society by doctrines and practices and is often
intolerant of others, refusing any sort of constructive dialog. Cult refers to a more extremist group that lives outside
ordinary social structures, often under the direction of a charismatic leader. See
http://www.religioustolerance.org/destruct.htm#commo (Accessed 08 23 2011).
272
An example of this kind of group acting within a larger society may be the summer 2009 organized behavior of people
who deliberately prevented communicative action by disrupting public meetings intended to discuss health care reform.
273
Such societal Road Menace tactics can have great influence within a larger nontotalitarian society. Consider
McCarthyism in the United States. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism (Accessed 08 23 2011).
274
See Michael Barkun, A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America (University of California
Press, 2003).
275
See http://www.auschwitz.dk/denmark.htm (accessed 08 23 2011).
271
Moral GPS
266
minorities. The SPLC used the new law to whittle away at exclusionary customs, but KKK violence
was a greater challenge because criminal prosecutors were unsuccessful in proving KKK responsibility
beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard of evidence for criminal conviction. Dees and the SPLC
used a new strategy to hold the KKK responsible: civil suits for damages, awardable to victims of
KKK violence or their survivors. In a civil suit the standard of evidence is the preponderance of the
evidence, easier to meet than the criminal standard. The resulting legal settlements bankrupted the
Klan.276
Another strategy at Kohlbergs Stage Five is to use the political process to foster change (for example,
the process described in the Moral GPS). Use the political structure of your community. In the case of
the plot of land described in the Moral GPS, the city zoning commission was the first stop for the
neighborhood people, then circulating a petition in the neighborhood, and then presenting that to the
City Council. Commissions, boards, and councils provide avenues for citizen input. (Of course, you
should be careful to follow the appropriate process for that input.) Neighborhood organizations can be
effectiveand it is not all that difficult to form such an organization if there isnt one where you live.
Approach your elected representatives. Get involved in the work of political parties and work for
candidates who hold positive values and are capable of communicative action. In such activity, be sure
that you observe the rules of the road. Foster political processes that approximate communicative
action, not exclusionary politics (e.g. demonizing opponents). You dont want to wind up facing a
Road Menace in the mirror when you wake up one morning....
What if the Law supports a violation of justice (oppression)? Here a person is called on to step beyond
the established structures of society, even into opposition to those structures. Persons who have taken
this step are identified by Lawrence Kohlberg as stage six of moral development, guided in
uncharted seas by universal moral principles. Two persons are ordinarily so identified: Mohandas
Gandhi and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Gandhi developed the strategy of Passive Resistance;277
Martin Luther King the strategy of Civil Disobedience.278
Gandhi insisted that passive resistance must be rooted in love. Always regard the adversary or
oppressor as a human person who can change. ANY tendency toward violence, even unexpressed
anger, changes that essential relation to the adversary. The purpose of passive resistance is to remove
the menace from the Road Menace, to bring him into communicative action.
Gandhi stressed the importance of public opinion. Passive resistance must dramatize the evil of an
unjust law/situationlike street theater, it requires an audience to be effective. Then the oppressor
can see himself as others see him, and probably will not like what he sees. Indias British rulers
considered themselves morally noble. Gandhi put them in the position of either accepting the changes
he sought or having to act like ruthless barbarians (rather unpleasant, actually, old boy!) in full view of
the entire world.
Rev. King presented a four-step strategy for resisting injustice. First, be sure that injustices really are
occurring; second, negotiate for change. (That negotiation is a form of communicative action, similar
to the process outlined in the Moral GPS.) If negotiation fails, and only if it fails, should people take
the next steps beyond established structures. The next step is pehaps the most important: selfpurificationremoving anger and hatred from ones motivation and, as Gandhi insisted, regard the
adversary as a human person who can change. Further, one must be prepared to accept whatever legal
276
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center; also http://www.splcenter.org (both accessed 08 23

2011)
277
See J. Thomas Wren, Leaders Companion: Insights on Leadership Through the Ages (The Free Press, 1995), pp. 72-77
278
See Letter from Birmingham City Jail (April 16, 1963), in A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin
Luther King, Jr. ed. James Melvin Washington. (Harper and Row, 1986), pp. 289-302.
Moral GPS
267
penalty follows from breaking a law. One must be psychologically and spiritually prepared to suffer,
and to do so lovingly. Only then is direct action justified: publicly acting in a way that challenges
(violates) unjust laws. Again, the purpose of such civil disobedience is to bring adversaries to
recognize and accept the need for negotiationin effect, to guide them back to being safe drivers on
the Moral Highway. Reactions to civil disobedience in the American South were extreme and
violentand seen by the entire world. The resulting embarrassment, as with the British Raj in India,
led to the disintegration of the societal Road Menace.
Is violent resistance to a Road Menace ever justifiable? (For instance, would Gandhis strategy have
worked were his adversaries ideologically-driven Nazi German invaders instead of noblesse oblige
British colonists?) What if the Road Menace acts in bad faith, deliberately and consciously violating
the moral autonomy of others? Ethics can fail. Your struggle with a Road Menace may send you
skidding into a ditch where there are no good alternatives, only bad and less bad ones. Coercion, even
violence, may be necessarybut only as a last resort.279 Further, coercion is ethically legitimate only
to the point that the Road Menace ceases to be menacing and comes to respect the moral autonomy of
others.280
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents
D. Decide!
Return to GPS
Guide to Step 4
(He reflects) We could start all over again perhaps.

That should be easy.
Its the start thats difficult.
You can start from anything.
Yes, but you have to decide.
True.
Silence
[Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot (Grove, 1954), p. 41.]
Vladimir:
Estragon:
Vladimir:
Estragon:
Vladimir:
Estragon:
Yes, you have to decide. The Moral GPS can be called a discernment and decision procedure, but it
cant make a decision for you.
There are innumerable decision procedures available, some highly sophisticated to assist with complex
decisions in complex organizations [See, for instance, D. J. White, Decision Theory (Transaction
Publishers, 2006) or Giovanni Parmigiani and Lurdes Inoue, Decision Theory: Principles and
Approaches (John Wiley and Sons, 2009), or merely google decision theory.] But even the most
sophisticated decision procedure cant make a decision for you. All these theories and procedures are
designed to assist you to take into account all relevant aspects of a situation and all reasonable
alternatives as you decide.
The Moral GPS offers two cautions if you choose to employ one of the sophisticated decision systems.
First, never succumb to the illusion that the system is making the decision so you dont have to. You
remain accountable for a decision even if your input was merely deciding to use a particular system
and abide by the outcome. In doing that, you have decided.
279
See the Just War Theory on the conditions for the justifiable use of violence.
Joseph L. Allen, Love & Conflict: A Covenantal Model of Christian Ethics (University Press of America, 1995), pp.
191-92.
280
Moral GPS
268
Second, decision theories and systems are based on moral assumptions [see Choose Route]. The theory
or system is no better than the assumption or assumptions upon which it is based. Most current
decision theories assume a Utilitarian moral theory. Be wary of the crash risk of any theory,
particularly of consequentialist theories. Be mindful of alternate routes, and even alternate approaches
to decisions [For a sharp contrast to the usual Utilitarian orientation of business decisions, see Eden
Grade, An Introduction to Quaker Business Practice, World Council of Churches, 8.03.2000.281]
281
WCC, http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/ecumenical-movement-in-the-21stcentury/member-churches/special-commission-on-participation-of-orthodox-churches/sub-committee-i-the-organization-ofthe-wcc-march-2000/eden-grace-on-quaker-business-practice.html (accessed 03/24/2011)

Moral GPS
269
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents
Guide to Step 5: Arriving at Destination

Return to GPS
V. Arriving at Destination
B. Accountability
Return to GPS
Guide to Step 5
The MyGPS feature of the Moral GPS has an important role to play at this point. Early in the
decision process, you set goals: life-journey goals and the particular goal (destination) for this decision.
Now is the time to review that particular goal in MyGPS. (You will want to reflect on how this
decision relates to your life goals later, in the my places section.) Ask a simple question: have you
accomplished what you set out to accomplish? That question subdivides itself into two: 1) did you get
the results you sought?, and 2) are the other people involved (stakeholders) satisfied with the decision?
Results
While today it seems obvious that results are an essential part of evaluating any action or program, it
was not always so. This writers experience is principally in higher education, where aeons ago (in the
1980s), colleges and universities focused on input in their evaluations. To what classics are
students being exposed? What breadth of exposure do students have to different disciplines?282
Colleges generally assumed that such exposure would produce habits of mind characteristic of the
truly educated person. Indeed that may have been so, but institutional evaluations (for instance,
accreditation reviews) did not try to verify it.
Evaluation by results first gained prominence in business, most dramatically with the publication of
Peter Druckers The Practice of Management in 1954, ushering in Management by Objectives. An
important feature of Druckers approach was that those crucial objectives were best developed through
a shared process of corporate planning, not dictated by top management.283
By the 1990s, in higher education student learning outcomes became a crucial measure of
institutional health in accreditation evaluations. This writer was involved in that reorientation by the
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools as a humanities faculty member in a Midwestern
college and then as academic vice president. In my experience, this reorientation toward outcomes
This Great Books curriculum design was developed early in the 20 th century. For a prime example of such a
curriculum, see St. Johns College in Annapolis, Maryland: http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/academic/main.shtml (accessed
10/04/2011)
283
See, for instance, the United Nations course on results-based management for accountability and effectiveness:
http://www.un.org/depts/oios/mecd/un_pparbm/index.htm (accessed 10/03/2011)
282
Moral GPS
270
rather than inputs had the potential to positively transform every aspect of the institution. Its impact
was felt from strategic planning to the design and evaluation of each graded assignment in each course.
Strategic planning starts with the institutions mission statement. College mission statements tended to
describe what the college is rather than what it seeks to achieve. X College is an independent,
residential college, providing the highest quality undergraduate education in the liberal arts, including
the sciences. This typical mission statement focuses on input, on what the professors are doingin
effect, the point of departure. Focusing on outcomes implied a paradigm shift, attending to what is
happening within students and aiming toward an ideal graduate: The mission of X College is to
develop citizens for the world, through education without prejudicea destination. All planning and
practice was transformed by that positive mission. Budgeting, for instance, shifted from how do we
maintain what weve been doing to how do we best attain the missiona change from bottom-line
thinking (usually rather depressing in a small college) to top-line thinking that sparked creativity
and cooperation.
Course planning in departments and by individual faculty was flipped upside down. Planning a
Humanities course had ordinarily started with selection of readings, only as a last step designing
assignments that typically sought to determine how well students digested the content of those
readings. Faculty now began by defining what changes the course should make in students
knowledge, ability and attitude or insight. Text selection was governed by that aim. Assignment design
came early in the process and became quite creative, abandoning regurgitation exercises for things
more creative and even adventurous.
But especially in the Humanities, grading became a controversial issue. Why? Because results, you
see, are supposed to be measurable. However wondrous the Humanities may be, quantitative they are
not.
Measurable results.
How did an English professor, for instance, tell the difference between an A paper and a C paper? I
just know, a professor was likely to say. Through my education and experience, I have developed a
sense, an intuitive ability, to evaluate student writing. Unstated is the woe betide any dean that
questions my expertise! A problem, of course, was that different professors arrived at different grade
evaluations of the same papers. The Emerson scholar growled, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin
of little minds!
So all the English faculty agreed to apply their expert intuition in evaluating a dozen or so student
papers. It didnt take long (a candid professor will tell you that she knows the grade level of a paper
within fifteen seconds). Most agreed on the A papers and on the D papers, but there was little
agreement on the middling ones.
The next step was more difficult. Take the papers that all intuitively agreed were A quality, and
describe their qualities. A list emerged from discussion: well organized, focused, well documented,
clear, etc. The same process produced a D list: poorly organized, vague, poorly documented, poor
syntax, etc. The B and C lists emerged the same way. The faculty had produced a set of criteria for
grading based on their own intuitive insight and not dictated from outside. Then they evaluated another
dozen student papers, this time tuning their intuition with the lists. Consistency of grading increased
dramatically. The lists thereafter became part of departmental policy, reflected by new sections in
course syllabi titled qualities of successful student papers.284
This process is called holistic evaluation, and the lists are commonly called rubrics.
284
Moral GPS
271
The English faculty had generated a method of measuring non-quantifiable, subjective qualities
with a consistency rivaling so-called objective evaluations without the unfortunate reductionist
character of quantitative assessment. Attitudes toward measurability changed. If you can consistently
and appropriately measure intangibles like student thinking and (in another department) philosophic
insight, how is measurability alien to the Humanities--or, in the Moral GPS, to ethical thinking?
Avoid Reductionism
The crucial issue for results-based evaluation is making the measure appropriate to what is being
evaluated. That means recognizing and including all relevant aspects of a decision in its context.
The moral failure of the OW executives was their exclusive focus on monetary measures, ignoring
intangibles like human suffering and long-term corporate reputation.The moral failure of Milton
Friedmans dictum (that the only moral responsibility of a business is to increase profits) is that it
excludes all stakeholders other than stockholders and ignores the social and environmental context of
the business. A major crash risk for all manufacturing and energy concerns (and consumers) is
ignoring externalities, a central concern for environmental ethics.
The most effective way to avoid such destructive reductionism is, of course, to include all stakeholders
in dialog seeking consensus toward effective action.
(Yes, you are correct in discerning that academic outcomes-based planning and holistic assessment
influenced the conception and design of the Moral GPS.)
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents
B. Accountability
Return to GPS
Guide to Step 5
Accountability is a crucial component of morality and ethics. The ancient religious concepts of a
judgment on ones actions (in the present life, in a future life (karma), or on Judgment Day)
demonstrate the integral role in moral life of accountability for ones actions. That judgment may be
divine, karmic, or simply social: a persons actions may evoke praise or blame from other people.
Accountability expresses the essentially social nature of morality: we all travel together on the same
Moral Highway.
A careless use of the terms individual morality and personal morality may convey the impression
that morality is subjective, therefore relative, and therefore a person is not accountable to others for his
or her actions. Individual morality in that sense defines a Road Menace of the unethical egoist type,
and would turn the Moral Highway into an anarchic scrap heap. A careless reaction to such individual
morality stresses moral objectivism and even absolutism, threatening the Moral Highway with a rash
of One-Way Drivers and even Road Menaces of the Moral Bigot type.
The Moral GPS advises a more cautious and accurate use of the term personal morality (individual
morality is too misleading a term to be of any use on the Moral Highway). Personal morality here is
equivalent to moral autonomy, a person's free embrace of life in the world with others. The morally
autonomous person affirms interdependence and accepts limits and social norms as reasonable
accommodation to the autonomy and good of others. Morality is essentially interpersonal.
The Moral GPS is influenced by the highly interpersonal ethic of H. R. Niebuhr. His entire ethic is
developed around the idea of interpersonal accountability or responsibility.285 For Niebuhr, morality is
285
H. R. Niebuhr, The Responsible Self (Harper and Row, 1963).

Moral GPS
272
response-ability. He recognized that moral persons do not live by following rules or cultivating
virtues, but primarily by constant interaction with other persons. To act morally is to respond to the
challenge that others present, act in a way that is appropriate to the challenge, and then to hold oneself
accountable to those others. Accountability therefore is integral to the beginning as well as the
conclusion of a decision process. (The Moral GPS incorporates initial accountability by ensuring that
you include all appropriate stakeholders into the process.)
Accountability is therefore integral to moral autonomy. Consequently, accountability cannot rightly be
limited to an upward reporting line in a hierarchical organization.286
Discussion of institutional Accountability Systems or Accountability Structures is beyond the scope of
the Moral GPS, but belongs in Management or Organizational Behavior arenas.
The Moral GPS offers two cautions to aid your investigation of such accountability systems.
First, remember that you are accountable to all stakeholders in your decisions. Yet you may be part of
an organization that is hierarchically structured, so that downward and lateral accountability simply is
not part of the organizational culture. Be wary of the thought that the organizational culture must
therefore be changed immediately, and wary as well of the opposite feeling that, well, there just is
nothing to be done about it. The Moral GPS presents accountability to all stakeholders as a should. The
distance between that ideal and actual conditions present you with a moral challenge, and you ought to
do only what you can gradually (and creatively) to move the conditions closer to the ideal. (Remember
that the ideal is not merely optional: it defines conditions for fully safe travel on the Moral
Highway.)
Second, accountability structures and systems are based on moral assumptions (see Choose Route).
The system is no better than the assumption or assumptions upon which it is based. Be wary of the
crash risk of any theory. Be mindful of alternate routes, and even alternate approaches to
accountability.
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents

Return to GPS
Guide to Step 5
The Moral GPS is distinctive in that it considers any particular ethical decision as part of a persons
entire moral life. Your particular goals emerge from your life goals; what you decide now emerges
from who you are and where you come from; your present energy and effort emerge from that deeper
hope by which you affirm yourself and your world into the future.
Do not skip this last step.
Integrate this particular decision experience into your overall journey. That will return you to
yourselfhome.
286
An excellent example of the inadequacy of such hierarchical accountability is the 1986 Challenger disaster. See
http://temp.onlineethics.org/essays/shuttle/index.html (accessed 05 26 2011).
Moral GPS
273
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents
Using Resources of the Rest Area

Tourist Info Center
Caf
Tourist Info Center
Tourist Info Center
The Tourist Information Center provides further insight into moral values and theories. Information
there can help you make effective use of values and theories in building consensus toward a practical
response to an ethical challenge.
The major moral theories are summarized here. Further insight into these theories is readily available
through standard introductions to Ethics, for instance, James Rachels The Elements of Moral
Philosophy.287
Further insight into About Alternate Routes is in the Operators Manual Guide to Step Three.
Moral Values and Theories dont provide cookbook recipes for easy, step-by-step concocting of easily
digested solutions to complex problems. You will need skills of critical thinking and creativity,
discussed in the last two sections of the Tourist Information Center. Drive carefully!
Cafe
Caf
The Cafe includes a glossary and a list of web resources.
The glossary contains definitions of words as they are used in the Moral GPS. Some of those
definitions fit only the Moral GPS, especially words taken from the context of highway driving (for
instance, crash risk) and adapted metaphorically to moral life and thought.
You may want to consult other philosophic dictionaries for definitions of terms as they might be used
in other contexts. Be careful of standard dictionaries, though: the typical collegiate dictionary
definitions often lack the specialized philosophic or ethical senses of terms. Try a philosophic
dictionary (for instance, http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/288 ) or an encyclopedia of philosophy
(for instance, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/289 ). Be cautious with
these resources, too. Be alert for assumptions that may limit their perspective (philosophypages, for
instance, leans heavily toward the analytic approach to philosophy that is cumbersome on the Moral
Highway).
The list of web resources links you to sites that this writer has found useful in teaching and writing up
to the time of the final editing of the Moral GPS. Much of that teaching had to do with ethics and the
professions, and as a result the list includes many sites specific to a single profession. This list is only a
starting point for you. Search the web, but be sure that you evaluate the quality of sources. (Reliable
sources are likely to be linked to universitiesthe .edu domain suffixor to professional
organizations.) And, yes, libraries (especially academic libraries) remain your richest resource.
287
Fourth Edition (McGraw-Hill, 2003).

Accessed 08 23 2011
289
Accessed 08 23 2011
288
Moral GPS
274
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents
Supplement: Driving Practice and Trip Tips.

Return to GPS
Driving Practice
The Moral GPS provides only two cases for driving practice. If you are using the Moral GPS for
your personal discernment and decision-making, those should be enough to give you a good sense of
how to use the Moral GPS effectively. However, if the Moral GPS is serving as a guide in a classroom
situation or in a group development program, you will want to supplement these cases with others.290 It
is best to turn to an ethics casebook rather than to current events sources, for you will need cases that
are complete and comparatively concise. You will also want to select a source for cases in your area of
interest (e.g. business, health care ethics, professional efhics, and the like).

A particular congested area is likely to have issues and ethical procedures specific to that area. The
Moral GPS provides a very brief summary of some of those issues and procedures, based on the
authors years of teaching ethics. These are things that you should keep in mind when applying the
more general framework of the Moral GPS. Some areas (e.g. Bioethics) constitute entire fields of
research and study, well beyond the scope of the Moral GPS. Therefore the tips include suggestions
on how to look for further information and insight. In a classroom situation, for instance a course in
health care ethics, you will want to supplement the Moral GPS with a brief text specific to the topic of
the study.
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents
Sources
Some helpful sources relating to ethical theory, congested areas and professions
See also Internet Resources in the Rest Area Caf.
General
Allen, Joseph L. Love & Conflict: A Covenantal Model of Christian Ethics. University Press of America, 1995.
Appiah, Kwame Anthony. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. Norton, 2006.
Baier, Annette. Moral Prejudices: Essays on Ethics. Harvard University Press, 1995
Buss, Sarah. "Valuing Autonomy and Respecting Persons: Manipulation, Seduction, and the Basis of Moral
Constraints." Ethics 115 (January 2005): 195-235.
Cole, Robert The Moral Intelligence of Children. Plume (Penguin),1997.
Cooper, David E. Ethics for Professionals in a Multicultural World. Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004
290
See the Instructors Manual.

Moral GPS
275
Dalai Lama, Ethics for the New Millennium. Penguin, 2001.

Gottlieb, Roger S. "Ethics and Trauma: Levinas, Feminism, and Deep Ecology." Cross Currents 44:2
(Summer 1994).
Gunther, Klaus. The Sense of Appropriateness. SUNY Press, 1993.
Habermas, Jrgen Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy,
trans. William Rehg. MIT Press, 1996
Habermas, Jrgen. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Trans. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry
Weber Nicholsen. MIT Press, 1990.
Habermas. Jrgen. The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Eds. Ciaran P. Cronin and Pablo De
Greiff. MIT Press, 2000.
Kidder, Rushworth M. How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living.
Simon & Schuster, 1995.
Nachmanovitch, Stephen. Free Play: The Power of Improvisation in Life and the Arts. G. P. Putnam's Sons,
1990.
Niebuhr, H. Richard. The Responsible Self. Harper & Row, 1963.
Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill, 2003.
Robinson, Fiona.Globalizing Care: Ethics, Feminist Theory, and International Relations. Westview Press, 1999
Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. Anchor (Random House), 1999.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu), articles on Environmental Ethics, Habermas,
Levinas.
Thiroux, Jacques P. Ethics: Theory and Practice. Prentice Hall, 2001.
Thompson, Lindsay J. The Moral Compass: Leadership for a Free World. Information Age Publishing, 2009.
Wall, John. "The Creative Imperative: Religious Ethics and the Formation of Life in Common." Journal of
Religious Ethics 33:1 March 2005.
Weston, Anthony. Creative Problem-Solving in Ethics. Oxford, 2007.
Professions
Badaracco, Joseph L. Defining Moments: When Managers Must Choose between Right and Right. Harvard
Business School Press, 1997.
Baker, Robert B., ed. The American Medical Ethics Revolution. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.
Beauchamp, Tom, and Norman Bowie. Ethical Theory and Business. Prentice Hall, 2001.
Beauchamp, Tom, and John Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press, 2001.
Bloch, Sidney, ed. Psychiatric Ethics. Oxford University Press, 1999.
Business Ethics Quarterly
Moral GPS
276
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents
Canter, Mathilda, et al. Ethics for Psychologists. American Psychological Association, 1996.
Corey, Gerald, et al. Issues and Ethics in the Helping Professions. Brooks/Cole, 2002.
Devettere, Raymond. Practical Decision Making in Health Care Ethics: Cases and Concepts. Georgetown
University Press, 2000.
Freedman, Monroe H. Understanding Lawyers Ethics. Lexisnexis, 2002.
Freeman, John M., et al. Tough Decisions: Cases in Medical Ethics. Oxford University Press, 2000.
Garrett, Thomas M, et al. Health Care Ethics. Prentice Hall, 2000.
Guy / Carmichael / Lach. Ethics for CPAs: Meeting Expectations in Challenging Times. John Wiley and Sons,
2003.
Hartman, Laura P. and Joe DesJardins. Business Ethics: Decision-Making for Personal Integrity and Social
Responsibility. McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2008.
Harris, John. Bioethics. Oxford University Press, 2001.
Hollender, Jeffrey and Stephen Fenicelli. What Matters Most: Business, Social Responsibility and the End of the
Era of Greed. Basic Books, 2003.
Kahn, Jeffrey P., ed. Beyond Consent: Seeking Justice in Research. Oxford University Press, 1998.
Lennick, Doug and Fred Kiel, Moral Intelligence: Enhancing Business Performance and Leadership Success.
Wharton School Publishing, 2005.
Lowman, Rodney L., ed. The Ethical Practice of Psychology in Organizations. American Psychological
Association, 1997.
Magill, Harry T., et al. The CPA Profession. Prentice Hall, 1997.
Meissner, W. W. Ethical Dimensions of Psychoanalysis: A Dialogue. SUNY Press, 2003.
Nash, Robert J. Real World Ethics: Frameworks for Educators and Human Science Professionals. Columbia
Teachers College Press, 2002.
Nelson, Linda L., ed. Stories and their Limits: Narrative Approaches to Bioethics. Routledge, 1997.
ODonohue / Ferguson, eds. Handbook of Professional Ethics for Psychologists. SAGE Publications, 2003.
Ozar, David, et al. Dental Ethics at Chairside. Georgetown University Press, 2000.
Parsons, Richard D. The Ethics of Professional Practice. Allyn and Bacon, 2000.
Penslar, Robin L. Research Ethics: Cases and Materials. Indiana University Press, 1994.
Phillips, Robert. Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2003.
Remley, Theodore D., et al. Ethical, Legal and Professional Issues in Counseling. Prentice Hall, 2000.
Rest, James R., ed. Moral Development in the Professions. Laurence Earlbaum Associates, 1994.
Robin, Ron Theodore. Scandals and Scoundrels. University of California Press, 2004.
Moral GPS
277
Robinson, Fiona. Globalizing Care. Westview, 1999. (International Relations)

Rollen, Bernard E. An Introduction to Veterinary Medical Ethics: Theory and Cases. Iowa State University Press,
1999.
Shannon, Thomas A. An Introduction to Bioethics. Paulist, 1997.
Veatch, Robert M. The Basics of Bioethics. Prentice Hall, 2003.
Zitrin, Langford. The Moral Compass of the American Lawyer. Ballantine, 2000.
Image credits
Page
1. (cover) http://www.corrosioncost.com/infrastructure/highway/
4. Garmin c330 by author
7. - Authors desk; by author
- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=4231
9. Share the Road from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs Share1824-2.gif
14. Congested area By Svgalbertian (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
15. - Merge from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
- Dangerous intersection from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
19. Single lane ahead from RoadTrafficSigns.com (smartsign.com).
20. - Garmin c330 by author
- Detour from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
- Watch for rocks from RoadTrafficSigns.com (smartsign.com).
- Road closed from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
- Bridge out from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
- Caution from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
- Detour from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
- High water from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
- Fork from RoadTrafficSigns.com (smartsign.com).
21. Congested area By Svgalbertian (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
22. - Garmin c330 by author
23. Limited sight distance from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
24. - ? By The original uploader was Xiong at English Wikipedia Later versions were uploaded by Andrew pmk at
en.wikipedia. (Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons.) [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], via Wikimedia Commons
- Garmin c330 by author
28. Wrong way from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
29. http://www.corrosioncost.com/infrastructure/highway/
31. - Accident ahead from RoadTrafficSigns.com (smartsign.com).
- Divider from RoadTrafficSigns.com (smartsign.com).
33. Caution from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
40. One way from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
41. No outlet from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
42. Dead end from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
- Road narrows from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
44. Guardrail: Gary Halvorson, Oregon State Archives via Wikimedia Commons
- Wrong way from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
Moral GPS
- Road closed from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
- Skid from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
45. - Congested areaBy Svgalbertian (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
- Y from RoadTrafficSigns.com (smartsign.com).
- 3-way fork origin unknown
- Overpass by Doo-ho Kim from Seoul, Republic of Korea [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bysa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
46. Garmin c330 by author
47. Caution from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
- Yield from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
49. Y from RoadTrafficSigns.com (smartsign.com).
- Wrong way from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
50. Rough road from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
52. Slow dangerous intersection from RoadTrafficSigns.com (smartsign.com).
- + from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
- Traffic circle from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
54. Traffic circle from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
55. Slow vehicle from RoadTrafficSigns.com (smartsign.com).
58. Wrong way from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
62. Traffic circle from http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/>USA Traffic Signs
68. End from RoadTrafficSigns.com (smartsign.com).
101. Rest area by author
- Tourist info center
http://www.clker.com/cliparts/e/d/6/1/1317151012663351646Tourist%20Info%20Center.svg.med.png
- Caf http://www.clipartpal.com/_thumbs/00200077132_tns.png
- Garmin c330 by author
102. Tourist info center
http://www.clker.com/cliparts/e/d/6/1/1317151012663351646Tourist%20Info%20Center.svg.med.png
- A-frame by Nicklamon at en.wikipedia [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
148. Spiral http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j22/beck.asp (accessed June 7, 2011).
165. Caf http://www.clipartpal.com/_thumbs/00200077132_tns.png
252. Yin-yang yin-yang By Gregory Maxwell [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yin_yang.svg
281. Photo of instructor by Emily A. Bowman
278
Moral GPS
279
GPS MENU
GPS START
Contents
About the Author

Leonard J. (Len) Bowman earned a B. A. in Philosophy from Duns
Scotus College, an M.A. in English Literature from the University of
Detroit and a Ph.D. in Religion and Literature from Fordham University.
He has taught at Roger Bacon High School (OH), Nutley High School
(NJ), Fordham University (NY), Marycrest International University (IA),
the College of Notre Dame (MD), Wesley College (DE) and Mount St.
Mary's College (MD). He has also served as Vice President for Academic
Affairs. He currently teaches part-time at Johns Hopkins University
(MD), in the Carey Business School and in the Center for Liberal Arts.
Dr. Bowman's writings include scholarly and popular books and articles
on topics in spirituality and the history of ideas. He has taught courses in
Ethics for over 30 years. Among his teachers and mentors are Huston Smith, Wilfred Cantwell Smith,
Jaroslav Pelikan, Francis T. Gignac, Charles H. Lohr, William Richardson, Ewert Cousins, John D.
Boyd and Thomas Berry.

Moral GPS: A Positive Ethic For Our Multicultural World

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Moral GPS: A Positive Ethic For Our Multicultural World

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Moral GPS

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

A discernment and decision process in five steps

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

A discernment and decision process in five steps

Consult the Operator's Manual, too.

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

First Step: Acquiring Satellites

Second Step: Where To?

Third Step: Choose Route

Fourth Step: GO!

Fifth Step: Arriving at Destination

First Step: Acquiring Satellites

Where Are We?

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

1. YOU ARE HERE!

Okay, so wheres here?

Youre in the particular place where you happen to be now.

2. (zoom out; WAY out).

You are in this world. With others.

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

2. CHECK THE MIRROR

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

3. RULES OF THE ROAD

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

5. DRIVE WITH CONFIDENCE

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

Dangerous Intersection: A Moral Dilemma You Can't Resolve Alone.

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

Second Step: Where To?

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

B. Your Goals and Ideals

In all your traveling on the Moral Highway,

C. Goals and Ideals for ALL

What does that mean to you?

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

attain appropriate freedom for everyone

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

E. "Go Home" Setting

You can get lost on the Moral Highway.

Driver fatigue causes crashes.

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

Third Step: Choose Route

A. How Routes Work on the Moral Highway

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

A. How Routes Work on the Moral Highway

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

B. Main Routes and Their Alternate Routes

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

Kantian Duty Ethic

Some Side Roads

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

Do you remember Octogenarian Millie? Two physicians, Dr. R.

2008, 2014, 2015 Leonard J. Bowman

Fourth Step: GO!

Eyes on the Road