Identifying ethical dimensions of environmental issues...

We are interested in the questions:
"How ought I/we act?"
"What ought I/we value?"

I.  SOCIAL/ECOLOGICAL ETHICAL DIMENSIONS -
Part 1, Substantive ethical issues.

A. Is there moral conflict involved in the issue?
 

1. What values are at stake in the issue?  What is valued by parties, and who values these things?
a. A value relates to something a person and/or a group wants and pursues, out of spontaneous desire, or out of deliberate reflection and choice. Values are internal, enduring, evaluative and/or direction-giving. There are many many kinds of values; consult this skeletal list of values.

b. Preferences are more easily substituted and less enduring than values; individuals holding them could easily be convinced to choose a different means of satisfaction, so they should not be counted.

c. Will any un-represented parties be significantly impacted in the issue (non-humans, future generations, etc.)? If so, what values serve their interests?

2. Determine if any of these values are moral ones:
a. Etiquette & social conventions - rules that help social transactions flow, but are not substance of them; tend to vary by time and place.  Do not count these values.

b. Are any of the values ones that relate to matters of right and wrong; the permissible vs impermissible; obligatory vs optional vs supererogatory acts; and/or virtuous or vicious character traits?  (NOTE: Moral values are expressed in a wide range of obligations, such as not killing innocents; not killing in general; telling the truth; helping others; being honest; not causing unnecessary pain or suffering; keeping promises; doing good when feasible; and honoring others' rights.  Moral values are also expressed in terms of rights, such as individual rights, including to one's person, freedom, property, health, privacy, to be informed, to give one's consent; rights of legitimately constituted groups, such as to act on the behalf of the common needs and interests of its members.  Groups also have obligations, such as to look out for their vulnerable members.  What constitutes an individual right & obligation, and a legitimate group interest is open to argument.)

    o IF NO, issue is not moral, although procedures for resolving it probably have ethical dimensions; GO TO II.
    o IF YES, values are moral; GO TO I.A.3.
  3. Determine if those holding / benefiting by these values have claim to moral consideration.
   a. If the values held by / benefiting a party are overridden, is the sense in which that party's interests are harmed morally compelling, regardless of whether that party can itself represent or champion its own interests?  (NOTE: There are significant philosophical disagreements on whether various entities (especially nonhumans, and non-individuals) can have such interests.)
    o IF NO, those values/entities are dropped from analysis.
    o IF YES, all parties have moral standing; ensure they have effective representation; GO TO I.A.4.
  4. Determine if the moral values held by opposing parties conflict.
  a. Does one party fulfilling its valued goal preclude another party from attaining its?  (NOTE: Here is where creative problem solving may help --- or may not.)
    o IF NO, Parties pursue goals.
    o IF YES, values conflict; GO TO I.B.


 B. Determine if these moral values are commensurable.

1. Can the values be represented, or reduced to a unit of exchange, such as money or something else transferable?
   o IF YES, Design fair process for distribution  and / or compensation.
   o IF NO, values are incommensurable; GO TO I.C.


C. Determine if moral values are equally legitimate.

1. Can equally compelling and valid reasons be given for why the respective values (or their expression in principles) are necessary to social cohesion and human and/or nonhuman flourishing? Do they equally meet essential needs and promote the most significant interests of humans and/or nonhumans in optimal ways?

2. Note that the parties involved may hold to their moral values / principles with equal commitment, and their views may be underlain by profoundly different worldviews. Though this is often true, it does not substitute for reasonable defense of those values.

    o IF NO, use moral persuasion to convince parties and witnesses of superiority of one (set) of the values in this case.
    o IF YES, values are equally legitimate; GO TO I.D.

D. Determine if decision can be deferred until later, or must be decided now.

1. Will delay or passage of time preclude opportunity for one party to realize its valued moral goal?
   o IF NO, Delay decision in order to seek alternatives, urge parties to gather more information, consider issue from others' perspective, etc.
   o IF YES, irreducible substantive moral conflict involved; GO TO II.
 

II. SOCIAL/ ECOLOGICAL ETHICAL DIMENSIONS -
Part 2, Procedural values

 A. Does the burden of proof fall clearly on one party more than the other?

  1. Would pursuing the route proposed by any party alter the status quo, impose significant costs or harms on others, or produce significantly uncertain outcomes?
   o IF NO, Burden of proof offers no guidance.
   o IF YES, design fair process in which parties proposing such action should have to show that harms will be acceptable, including determination of threshold of acceptability (Precautionary Principle).
 

B. Can conflict be resolved by process that allows division of good by possibility of turn-taking?

 1. Is the value involved associated with a one-time-only event, such that it could not be made available at a later time to other party?
   o IF YES, turn-taking not possible.
   o IF NO, Design fair procedure for repeatedly allotting opportunities
 

 C. Allocative or adjudicative process should embody & follow important procedural values, including:


 D. Communicative considerations: Universal Pragmatics: Optimal conditions for rational discourse are freedom and justice, as articulated by these principles (Benhabib, after Habermas):

  1) freedom (the right to concede to the force of the better argument alone)
a) Each participant must have an equal chance to initiate and to continue communication
b) Each must have an equal chance to make assertions, recommendations, and explanations, and to challenge justifications.
  2) justice (the reciprocal and symmetrical distribution of rights among participants)
c) All must have equal chances as actors to express their wishes, feelings and intentions
d) The speakers must act AS IF in contexts of action there is an equal distribution of chances 'to order and resist orders, to promise and to refuse, to be accountable for one's conduct, and to demand accountability from others.'
III. PERSONAL ETHICAL DIMENSIONS
  1. Which (if any) of your core values, ideals and most important moral principles that are called upon in this situation?
  2. Whose other interests are you obligated to take into consideration?
  3. What are  your professional ethical obligations?
  4. What are your legal obligations?
  5. Are there any moral principles you might be obligated to follow, even though you are not legally or professionally required to? (supererogatory acts ('beyond the call of duty))
  6. Are there any moral principles you might be obligated to follow, even though legally or professionally you are expected to act to the contrary? If so, determine if the principle validly applies, and the strength of the case that you should follow it, and whether it should override your legal or professional obligation.