This may be the last post we share that is inspired by my ethics course at Gonzaga. This course has brought me a greater understanding of different worldviews and the values associated with them. I have begun to see life with eyes wide open. Granted my worldview hasn’t changed, but my understanding of it has. I have begun to see why I respond the way I do and how my values play an active role in decision-making processes outside of my home.
My worldview (not my values) tends to run in the background. Why I do what I do or believe the way I do runs underneath my life. It is kind of like a computer’s operating system. I don’t give it a second thought while I do my work. But once something doesn’t do what it should or something crashes, the operating system becomes extremely important to understand.
Trials tend to crash in on my personal worldview and force me to evaluate why I believe and if my belief system is viable. As I work through them, I become more aware of what and why I believe. They force me to bring my worldview to the forefront.
This seemingly constant reevaluation of who I am and what I believe (and the resultant experience) helps me better cope with difficulties in my work environment. I can evaluate process or equipment or employee needs, looking for a better way, if possible. My life’s struggles have helped me understand that struggles happen and they are opportunities to overcome.
Tag Archives: worldview
Universal morality?
C. S. Lewis writes: “If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality.”
The implication of Lewis’ statement is that there is a set of moral ideas that is truer or better. While I agree with this idea, the difficulty of holding this viewpoint comes when we try to assess the moral ideas to be included. I would obviously say that my moral standards are truer or better than a divergent set. You would say that yours are better.
Some more class time…
Okay, my ethics class is coming to an end. But, since you and I are walking through this class together (sort of) let me address a problem that was brought up to the class: C. S. Lewis writes: “If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality.”
The implication of Lewis’ statement is that there is a set of moral ideas that is truer or better. While I agree with this idea, the difficulty of holding this viewpoint comes when we try to assess the moral ideas to be included. I would obviously say that my moral standards are truer or better than a divergent set. You would say that yours are better. Handling these different moral codes requires an understanding of both values and ethics.
When we talk about a person’s moral codes we are essentially talking about their values: a person’s standards of behavior, one’s judgment on what is important in life. We can see the values a person holds through the actions of that individual. Cooper (1998) calls these actions, principles – “a general law or rule that provides a guide for action.” When we talk about ethics, Gibson (1966) defines it as seeking “to clarify the logic and adequacy of the values that shape the world; it assesses the moral possibilities which are projected and betrayed in the social give-and-take.”
Values define who a person is, principles define how values look, while ethics seeks to understand the implications those values have as they are lived out in society.
Hence, our dilemma… how do we address divergent personal moral codes in the organizational setting or even in life? (It is good to note that we are not talking about an ethical dilemma at this point, but about a difference in moral codes between people, maybe between employee and employer, maybe between friends.) I don’t think we can actually address personal moral codes in a manner that will bring all moral codes to a “unified ideal.” However, an organization should have an understanding of how to reach a necessary decision when divergent moral codes create ethical dilemmas.
Cooper’s (2000) model for effective decision-making, or Geva’s (1998) phase model might be used. The idea is to have a strategy in order to be comprehensive or strategic in arriving at a decision. As we walk through a decision-making process we can begin to shed the emotion or gut reaction involved when a dilemma first comes to light. Whatever plan we use, it is important to take a wide view of the dilemma. A wide view takes in all the ethical complexities and enables us to see more clearly our own values and the external obligations under which we act. (Cooper, 2000) There are many alternatives to every ethical decision. Having a plan of action helps us see the alternatives and their consequences before a decision is reached.
Just musing…
Brian
