test drive the moral gps

Moral GPS

©2013 Leonard J. Bowman

1

Moral GPS A Positive Ethic for

Our Multicultural World

Len Bowman, Ph.D.

Test Drivethe new Moral GPS

Moral GPS


2MENU

Moral GPS flow chart

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 Operator’s Manual

Click here to start The GPS

Moral GPS A Positive Ethic for Our Multicultural World

by

Len Bowman, Ph.D.


The GPS

START

Moral GPS


3

Consult the Operator's Manual, too.

The Moral GPS has an onboard Glossary. Highlighted terms are linked to their definitions in the Glossary or in that part of the Moral GPS where the term is explained. Ordinarily the definition will appear at the top of the linked page; sometimes at 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 sense in the Moral GPS; the definitions applyonly here. For POP-UP definitions, place cursor at the BEGINNING of the highlighted word.

Moral GPS


4

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

©2013, 2014 Leonard J. Bowman

5START / MENU / Operators Manual

go to Flow Chart

First Step: Acquiring Satellites

Where Are We?

Second Step: Where To?

Set Goals

Third Step: Choose Route

Check Main Routes and Alternate Routes

Fourth Step: GO!

Make a Decision!

Fifth Step: Arriving at Destination

Are We There Yet?

Supplement: Driving Practice and Trip Tips for Congested Areas

Rest Area Tourist Info * Café * My GPS

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.

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 doesn’t 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.

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.

Deciding is not as simple as it looks. You must watch what’s happening around you. You must maneuver safely through dilemmas in order to foster consensus. Then you decide.

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?

Moral GPS


6

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 can’t 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. That’s why your Moral GPS asks you to look at yourself as if from a satellite overhead: an “eye in the sky.”

A. Satellite’s View

“Eye in the Sky”

1. YOU ARE HERE!Mapping Your Moral Location

2. CHECK THE MIRRORWhere are YOU coming from?

3. RULES OF THE ROADHow You Talk about Moral Issues.

4. CAREFUL!You’re Not the Only One on the Road

5. DRIVE WITH CONFIDENCECaution with Trust

B. Other Drivers Where Are Others Coming From?

C. Road Hazards Moral Dilemmas, Controversies, and Dangerous Intersections

Of course you can see the road in front of you as you drive. But that’s 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 you’re coming from, where others are

coming from, and where they’re headed.

Moral GPS


7 START

MENU REST AREA

Acquiring Satellites Operators Manual

3. RULES OF THE ROADHow You Talk about Moral Issues.

“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 you’re driving safely, and your passenger says, “Hey, you’re 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 isn’t just a matter of taste, is it? Aren’t you claiming that “You owe it to yourself and others to drive safely”? And why is that? Becausewe’re all in this together.

What if your driver says, “I am driving safely.” “You’re going 25 over the speed limit!” “So?”

It’s the Moral Highway we’re traveling with our Moral GPS, and the vehicle we’re 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.

Moral GPS


8Oops again. You both agree that you should drive safely. But you don’t 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 carefulconsideration. (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. Don’t interrupt or ridicule. (Don’t 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. Don’t 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 they’re more than just rules of etiquette. They’re 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 experiences—even your particular experiences of universal things like being a baby. Your language emerges from your story. Since others aren’t 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


9 START

MENU REST AREA

Operators Manual

Second Step: Where To?

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 doesn’t 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, don’t 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 tracks—or 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

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.

Moral GPS


10 B. Your Goals and Ideals

START MENU

REST AREA Where to?

Operators Manual

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 me—as 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)

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?

In all your traveling on the Moral Highway, What do you seek?

Moral GPS


11 START

MENU REST AREA

go to Flow Chart Operators Manual

Third Step: Choose Route

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 justified—or 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 isn’t 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 you—to 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 it’s important to map out your route before setting out on your particular journey. Then you’ll be ready, and you won’t 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)

OK, you've located yourself on the Moral Highway map. You’ve got an idea where other drivers are coming from and going to.

You’ve 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.

Moral GPS


12START MENU

REST AREA Choose Route

Operators Manual

A. How Routes Work on the Moral Highway

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 theory—two 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 non-intervention is obviously right!"

Dr. R’s reasoning is flawless within his results-only theory. Dr. D’s 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. That’s 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. Crash-prone!

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.

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.

Moral GPS


13You 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)

ADVISORY: Keep your Moral GPS turned on at all times. Always be ready for unexpected road hazards, congestion and traffic obstructions so that


Moral GPS


14 START

MENU REST AREA

go to Flow Chart Operators Manual

Fourth Step: GO!

You’ve taken the time to locate yourself in the moral universe. You’ve set your personal goals and you’ve embraced the shared goals that make for safe and smooth travel on the Moral Highway. You’ve examined the map of moral routes and you understand how to keep your balance among competing values and theories. Now you’re ready to apply all that you have learned and discerned.

Applying moral values and theories is a special challenge. Just as you can’t drive a car safely by keeping your eyes on the roadmap, so you can’t 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, it’s 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!

Finally!

Like a teen in Driver Ed, you’re probably fidgeting after all this time just sitting there learning the maps and controls. Let’s Go! Let’s Go!

Whoa, there. Easy, now. Driving the Moral Highway isn’t a fun sport; it’s a responsibility that you have toward everyone else on the Highway.

Moral GPS


15START MENU

REST AREA Go!

Operators Manual

Eyes on the Road

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 values—in the abstract. You may staunchly affirm absolute moral values—in 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 speed—but 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.

WARNING 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.

Moral GPS


16Be 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 closelyinvolved another person is, the stronger is your obligation to include that person in thedecision-making process.

Second, how seriously is a person likely to be affected by the decision? The moreseriously affected another person is likely to be, the stronger is your obligation toinclude that person in the decision-making process. Future generations may beaffected by your decision (for instance, if it’s related to the environment), and so theirpotential 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)

ADVISORY: Keep your Moral GPS turned on at all times. Always be ready for unexpected road hazards, congestion and traffic obstructions so that


Moral GPS


17 START

MENU REST AREA

Go! Operators Manual

Try to Stay Together

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 values6. 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 who’s just plain wrong. What you need most of all your Moral GPS can't provide: your own good judgment. Good luck!

(to MyGPS)

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.

. . .

Moral GPS


18

START MENU

REST AREA go to Flow Chart

Operators Manual

Fifth Step: Arriving at Destination

Once a decision is made, there’s often a great sigh of relief. The uncertainty is resolved. It’s a kind of euphoria. The decision generates energy for its implementation. Spirits are high.

But there’s 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, you’re left with the recognition that it could well have been otherwise. There were numerous possibilities, perhaps all good, and you selected one. Good—but 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 life’s moral journey? Time to reflect.

Are We There Yet?

Accountability

My Places, Recent Selections

Ah, so sweetly does the GPS say, “You have arrived at your destination.” We’ve arrived!! Everybody out.

Whoa! Not so fast. We’re not done yet. Sorry.

Moral GPS


19MENU

REST AREA Arriving at Destination

Operators Manual

Are We There Yet?

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 it’s 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.1

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!2

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.

1 See, for instance, Angela Albert, Assessing Student Learning Outcomes In The College Environment (VDM Verlag, 2009). 2 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)

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 wasn’t there before.

Did your decision take you where you wanted it to?


20Moral GPS 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)

I could be wrong… ADVISORY: Keep your Moral GPS turned on at all times. Always be ready for unexpected road hazards, congestion and traffic obstructions so that


Moral GPS


21MENU

REST AREA Arriving at Destination

My Places, Recent Selections Operators Manual

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 belt—you'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 drivers—make 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 ethic—trusting 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.

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?

Moral GPS


22

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


23

START MENU

REST AREA go to Flow Chart

OPERATOR'S MANUAL

Moral Values and Theories

Values

Theories

Related Principles

About Alternate Routes (Often alternate routes aren’t either-or; they’re both-and.)

Dilemmas and Methods of Resolving Dilemmas (Ready-made Detours: Logical Strategies.)

Helping Rookie Drivers (Theories of Moral Development)

Critical Thinking

Creativity

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.

You’ll notice that the 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 crash-prone. Balanced in relation to each other, values and theories can help guide you through moral dilemmas.

Moral GPS


24 Moral Theories

START MENU

REST AREA Tourist Info

Operators Manual

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

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.

Moral GPS


25 Consequentialist Theories

(Judging by Results)

START MENU

REST AREA Tourist Info Center

Egoism (Results for me)

Utilitarianism (Results for “The Greatest Number.”)

Deontological Theories (Judging by principles)

Natural Rights Theory (Act in accordance with everyone’s natural rights)

(Linked with justice –respect everyone else’s natural rights).

Social Contract Theory (Act in accordance with norms of ideal moral community)

Kantian Duty Ethic (Be sure that the rule allowing one’s 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


26Helping Rookie Drivers

Applying Theories of Moral Development. START MENU


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


27

Café 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.

Glossary

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 ofanother 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 person’s particular background. One’s assumptions can be made conscious by careful self-examination. Another person’s assumptions can be discerned by asking, “what principles or values must be taken for granted as true if this person’s moral stand is to make sense?”

*Breakdown: life conditions for an individual or group that lack essentials for enablingpersons 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)

*Collision: a failure of moral dialog that makes it impossible for different views to seekmutual understanding. A collision occurs when, instead of seeking to understand others and

Many of the words listed here are used in a sense unique to the Moral GPS. Those words are marked with an *asterisk.

Moral GPS


28seek 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.

Compassion: the ability to be moved to action by another’s 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 andthe subject of extensive public controversy.

*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"--limitsthat 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 verydifferent 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 orby 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 ofcrashing. 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

Moral GPS


29values. 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.

"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 person’s 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 person’s 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 group’s 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 Arendt’s 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.

Moral GPS


30Justification: 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 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 person’s 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, count—reckoning 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 GPS


31Moral 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 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 self-centeredness 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 person’s 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 GPS


32Moral Obligation (root: ligare, to tie: to be linked, bound or tied to another).3 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").

Moral Point of View: the perspective of a morally autonomous person, i.e. one who does not give preference to one’s own assumptions and interests over against others. From this perspective moral questions can be judged impartially.4 This perspective is rational, universal, self-critical, conducive to intercultural understanding, and compatible with cross-cultural 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 (onthe "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 entireMoral 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 another’s property. It does not oblige me to take steps to protect another’s property.

*One-Way Driver: a person whose moral reasoning is based exclusively on one moral theoryand who is unable or unwilling to think in terms of alternate routes. One-way drivers may

3 Etymology of Anglo-Saxon based words rely on the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 1971). 4 See Jürgen Habermas, “Morality and Ethical Life” in Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (MIT Press, 1990), p. 198.

Moral GPS


33become traffic obstructions. If a one-way driver completely closes his mind to other points of view, he can become a moral bigot—a Road Menace

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):5 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 ifone 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 commonroad hazard is a moral dilemma.

*Road Menace: a person who does not accept moral responsibility (crash-prone) or whodisregards 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 away 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 one’s 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):6 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.")

5 Etymology of Anglo-Saxon based words rely on the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 1971). 6Etymology of Anglo-Saxon based words rely on the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 1971).

Moral GPS


34*Skid: actual conditions in which a person’s actions or choices place that person in proximatedanger 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 bydecision 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 person’s situation. Contrast “empathy.”

*Traffic obstruction: a person who lacks the ability to address moral issues in a way thatadequately 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 can’t 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 withoutjustification.

Moral GPS


35

My GPSSTART MENU

REST AREA

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 Places, Recent Selections

My Driving Practice

The Moral GPS works best when you program YOUR settings into it. Use the shaded areas to enter your insights.

Then complete My GPS by thinking through the following questions. Save it as your own.

(BTW, the Moral GPS is copyrighted. Use it, but sharing it's a no-no.)

Moral GPS


36START 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


37What qualities do I seek in the conditions of my life?

(back)

Notes

Moral GPS


38

MENUCover

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: Language4. Careful! You’re 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 B. Your Goals and Ideals C. Goals and Ideals for ALL D. Particular Goals E. "Go Home" setting

3. Choose RouteA. How Routes Work on the Moral Highway 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 who’s just plain Wrong. D. Decide! A four-step decision process.

5. Arriving at DestinationA. "Are we there yet?" B. Accountability C. My Places: Recent Selections

Moral GPS


39


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

About Alternate Routes Dilemmas and Methods for Resolving Dilemmas Helping Rookie Drivers (Theories of Moral Development) Critical Thinking Creativity

Café Glossary Internet Resources

MY GPS

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

Instructor’s Manual

START REST AREA

go to Flow Chart

Moral GPS


40

Step Two: Where to?

Step One: Acquiring Satellites.

Eye in the Sky view

Look Ahead

Caution with Trust

Rules of the Road

Where YOU come from

Your Location

Road Hazards/Congested Areas

Where OTHERS come from

Others are on the Road

Your Goals and Ideals

Goals and Ideals for ALL

Particular Goals

"Go Home" Setting

My GPS

Step Five: Arriving at Destination.

Step Three: Choose Route.

Step Four: Go!

How Routes Work

Main and Alternate Routes

Areas to Avoid

Detours

Care

Results

Duty

"Side Roads"

Eyes on the Road!

Steer Carefully!

Try to Stay Together.

Decide!

Are We There Yet?

Accountability

My Places: Recent Selections

MENU START

MENU START

The GPS

See menu for Rest Area, etc.

Moral GPS


41GPS MENU

GPS START

Moral GPS A Positive Ethic for Our Multicultural World

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

About the Author

Instructor’s Manual

Moral GPS


42GPS 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 what’s involved in component;

- the Operator’s 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.)

Navigate by hyperlinks (click* on the link—a 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.

The Moral GPS has an onboard Glossary. Highlighted terms are linked to their definitions in the Glossary or in that part of the Moral GPS where the term is explained. Ordinarily the definition will appear at the top of the linked page; sometimes at the bottom. For pop-up definitions, place cursor at the beginning of the highlighted word. *Asterisks mark terms that are used in a special sense in the Moral GPS; the definitions apply only here.

Leonard

Highlight

Moral GPS


43GPS MENU

GPS START Contents

Introduction Back to GPS

Moral GPS: A Positive Ethic for Our Multicultural World


As an introduction, let’s 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.7 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.8 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 error—people wandering about lost).

Morality, then—at least for the Moral GPS—is much more than simply distinguishing between “right” and “wrong” options for particular decisions. Moral action is never isolated from a moral life—an 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, it’s 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 steer—i.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. It’s 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

7 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. 8The 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


44personal preference or opinion. The Moral GPS helps you identify your location within that moral world. It includes a moral compass—a firm, universally shared directional frame.9

Yet there’s 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 location2. Set your moral direction

(your personal goals and goals you share with all others)10 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.

Here’s an important suggestion: don’t 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. That’s a simple fact. For that matter, the world has always been multicultural. It’s just that now nearly everyone recognizes that fact. The world’s multicultural character can’t be ignored. It’s become obvious due to advances in transportation, communication, and economic development of formerly “third world” nations. Perhaps it’s also due to the wisdom of hindsight after the twentieth century’s 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

9"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. 10 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.


45Moral GPS (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 persons11. 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 world’s moral systems. Unfortunately, that isn’t possible for a small portable device like this Moral GPS. That is just as well, though, for wouldn’t 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.12 Again, for the Moral GPS there is only one avenue to reach cross-cultural moral judgments: moral dialog.

Ethic. There’s 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.13 Morality and ethics, in this sense, are integrally related—they 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

11 A simpler expression of this norm could be, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 12 Think of B. F. Skinner’s 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) 13 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.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-54552225.html

Moral GPS


46Ethics 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 opinion—reasons which ought to make sense to others, and which are available for critical evaluation and possible revision.14 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.15

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 person’s 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.16

14 This “step back” is called “decentering” by moral development theorists. See the Tourist Info Center on moral development. 15 The Moral GPS therefore passes over much of Analytic Ethics as less useful for traveling on the Moral Highway. 16 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.

Moral GPS


47Do 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 Beckett’s Waiting for Godot: “Don’t let’s do anything. It’s safer.”17)

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.”18 Optimism, though, isn’t a good preparation for confronting obstructions and frustrations. (Moreover, its opposite—pessimism—makes 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? That’s 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.19 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 persons—all 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 discourse—the "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.

17 Estragon in Act I 18 Charles Dickens, David Copperfield. London, 1850 19 See Leonard Bowman, Hope Against Hope: Toward Hope Beyond Hope (iUniverse, 2001).

Moral GPS


48Actual 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.20 That’s why the Moral GPS is a positive ethic in the best sense of the word.

Obviously, the Moral GPS is not “positive” as in “I’m positive that I’m right.” It’s very important on the Moral Highway to make room for others, and that means realizing that another may have the right of way—in other words, “I could be wrong.” 21

A caution is necessary here. An important element in the moral point of view is that you are self-critical, 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.22 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 values—where 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 flower—drawing forth and enhancing the flower’s 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.

That’s 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.

20 Klaus Günther 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. 21 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. 22The 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).

Moral GPS

©2013 , 2014 Leonard J. Bowman

49Are 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


50GPS MENU

GPS START Contents

Operator's Guides to Components of The GPS Flow Chart

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?3. Rules of the Road: Language4. Careful! You’re 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. II. Where to? (guide)

A. Look Ahead B. Your Goals and Ideals C. Goals and Ideals for ALL D. Particular Goals E. "Go Home" setting

III. Choose Route (guide)A. How Routes Work on the Moral Highway 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)A. Eyes on the Road. (Application discourse.) B. Steer carefully! (among values / stakeholder issues) C. Try to Stay Together (Working toward consensus)

D. Decide! V. Arriving at Destination (guide)

A. "Are we there yet?" B. Accountability

C. My Places: Recent Selections

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

Moral GPS


51

Operators Guides GPS MENU GPS START

Contents

Guide to Step 1: Acquiring Satellites 3. Rules of the Road: Language

a. Language: Communicative Actionb. The Rules of the Roadc. Validity and Justification

Return to GPS

Guide to Step 1

d. Common Core of Moralitye. “Should” and “Ought.”

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 morality”23 – 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. Jűrgen Habermas calls this use of language “communicative action.”24

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 verify—or falsify—my 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 shouldn’t 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 fact—or not—of ice. My words revealed something else—my 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. Let’s 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 “I’m 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.25 At this point the Moral GPS would urge you toward communicative

23 The phrase is used by Thomas McCarthy in his Introduction to Habermas’ Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (MIT Press, 1990), p. xi. 24 Jürgen Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (MIT Press, 1990), 24-26. 25 Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, pp 133-34.

Moral GPS


52action (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 understand each other’s 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 give-and-take negotiation.26 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 another’s 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 we’ve settled on a course of action but also that we’ve 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.27 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 another’s words. The appropriate philosophic discipline involved is not epistemology but hermeneutics.)

b. The Rules of the Roadreturn 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.28 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.”29 Making those implicit rules explicit is not a simple task. Habermas refers to three levels of rules:30

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 Don’t twist words. “Different speakers may not use the same expression with different meanings.”

2. Be honest and reasonable.

26 Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, p. 71. 27 Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, pp. 27, 50. 28 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. 29 Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action,p. 198. 30 Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, pp. 87-89.

Moral GPS


53 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.

3.1 Don’t exclude people. “Every subject with the competence to speak and act is allowed to take part in a discourse.” 3.2. Don’t 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 person’s 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.”31 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.32

The “Rules of the Road” in the Moral GPS are a simplification and adaptation of these implicit presuppositions of communicative action.

c. Validity and Justificationreturn 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.33

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

31 Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, p. 125. 32 See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discussion by Janmes Bohman and William Rehg (2007), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/habermas, # 3.4. 33 See Jürgen Habermas, Truth and Justification, B. Fultner (trans.). MIT Press, 2003

Moral GPS


54knew its suspension was conventional and its tires somewhat bald. You had asserted something that you didn’t 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 failure. If we had hot chocolate, it would probably be all over your face. Forget our friendship. Your manipulation could have got me killed! You’re 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 person’s particular interests must be acceptable to all.”34 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.”35

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 doesn’t mean that absolutely everyone affected must actually participate in the dialog; it means only that the dialog is potentially unlimited.36 (Note that Habermas developed these criteria before the Internet became in effect a global nervous system37. 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.38)

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.39

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 individual’s identity.40

d. Common Core of Moralityreturn to Language

Note that we haven’t 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.41 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.”

34Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, p. 197. 35 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. 36 See Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, p. 163: “At this third stage of interaction [Kohlberg’s 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.” 37 Compare the Internet with Teilhard de Chardin’s concept of the Noosphere: see “The Formation of the Noosphere” in Teilhard de Chardin, The Future of Man (Harper, 1959). 38 http://documents.latimes.com/un-report-internet-rights/ (accessed June 22, 2011) 39 Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, p. 65 and pp. 75-76 40 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). 41 See Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, p. 93.

Moral GPS


55Habermas distinguishes the normative role of the rules from “evaluative issues” regarding what constitutes the “good life.”42 He thereby avoids the pitfall of trying to define what is good for other 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.43

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,44 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.”45 “Discourse,” Habermas says, “stretches the presuppositions of context-bound communicative actions by extending their range to include competent subjects beyond the provincial limits of their own particular forms of life.” 46

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.47 The common core amounts to mutual respect for moral autonomy and the basic norms of justice that are implied therein.

42 Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, p. 121. 43 Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, p. 82 44 See Robert Kegan, In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life. (Harvard University Press, 1994). 45 Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, p. 165. 46 Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, p. 202. 47 Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, p. 81.


56Moral GPS 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.”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.”48 Language here operates as “justification discourse” and produces abstract norms that may remain valid under unchanging circumstances.49

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:

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.

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.

Jűrgen Habermas makes a similar distinction between questions of “what should I do” and “what would I do.”50 “Should” refers to a prima facie obligation, just as the Moral GPS uses the word. “Would” refers to a person’s actual intention to act or his confidence that he will act (similar to “I will” in the Moral GPS). Habermas’ distinction stresses the actor’s 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

Guide to Step 5: Arriving at Destination C. My Places: Recent Selections Return to GPS

Guide to Step 5

The Moral GPS is distinctive in that it considers any particular ethical decision as part of a person’s 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 yourself—“home.”

48 John Searle, “Prima Facie Obligations.” In Practical Reasoning, ed. J. Raz. (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp. 81-90. 49 Klaus Gűnther, The Sense of Appropriateness: Application Discourses in Morality and Law, trans. John Farrell. (SUNY Press, 1993), p. 204 50 Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, p. 183.

Moral GPS


57

Using Resources of the Rest Area Tourist Info Center

Café 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.51

Further insight into “About Alternate Routes” is in the Operators Manual Guide to Step Three.

Moral Values and Theories don’t 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

Café

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.

GPS MENU GPS START

Contents

Supplement: Driving Practice and Trip Tips. Return to GPS

Trip Tips for Congested Areas

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 author’s 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.

51 Fourth Edition (McGraw-Hill, 2003).

test drive the moral gps

Documents

gps moral gps

steps moral gps

moral life

menu moral gps flow

moral decisions

moral highway works

serious moral mishaps

multicultural world