goals of applied ethics courses

8/3/2019 Goals of Applied Ethics Courses

1/18

Goals of Applied Ethics Courses

Author(s): Paul F. CamenischSource: The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 57, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1986), pp. 493-509Published by: Ohio State University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1981255 .

Accessed: 06/10/2011 16:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Ohio State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal

of Higher Education.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ohiosuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1981255?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1981255?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ohiosup


2/18

tffEPaul F. CamenischGoals ofApplied thicsCourses

IntroductionIncreasingmounts f academic ndcorporatedu-cational esources rebeingdevoted o the area of appliedethics.Al-though hiscategory an includeanycourse whichbringsmoral andethical eflectiono bearonconcretemoral roblems,nthis rticle willbe concernedrimarily ith ourses nbusiness ndprofessionalthics.Butwhat rethe ppropriateoalsofsuch oursesn nstitutionsom-mittedo free nquirynd tolerance oward ivergentiewpoints? r,morebroadly ut,why re these oursesfinding home nuniversitiesandcolleges?This"why?"has several elated ut eparable nswers. tcanbe answerednterms fthe ventsnthe arger ocietyhat avegivena newurgencyothese oncerns;ntermsfthemotivationsfadminis-trators,nstructors,ndstudentsnvolvednthe ourses; nd ntermsfthe nticipatedutcomes f the courses.Some of theuncertaintiestillplaguing hisfieldderive rom ensionsmong hesedifferentnswers.Thespecificocietal timuli ehind pplied thics arywith he thicalissuesthat re seen as critical n a particulareriod.Differentistswillfeature heelectricalprice-fixingonspiracy f the sixties,the con-sumerismfRalphNader'sCorvair ampaign, heFordPintogas tankcase, illegalforeign ayments y majorcorporations,llegal corporatepolitical aymentsnd other lements f theWatergatecandal,LoveCanal,acidrain,E. F. Hutton's heck-kiting,ndon andon.Research or his rticlewas in largepartmadepossiblebya FacultyResearch ndDevelopmentummer rojectgrant rom heCollegeofLiberal Arts nd Sciences ofDePaul University.he author lso gratefullycknowledgesdditional ssistance en-dered ythe ibrarytaffftheCenter or heStudy fEthicsntheProfessions,llinoisInstitutefTechnology,hicago.

Paul F. Camenischsprofessorf religious tudies t DePaul University.Journal fHigher ducation,Vol. 57, No. 5 (September/October986)Copyright 1986bytheOhio StateUniversityress


3/18

494 Journal fHigherEducation

These timulieneratenotheretofanswers oour why?"nthe ormofpopularly opedfor utcomes.Manypersonsreskepticalboutwhatformalthical nstructionan dotoalter onduct.AsArjayMiller, ormerdeanofthe tanfordusiness chool,hassaid,"There re a lotofpeoplein ail todaywhohave passed ethics ourses" 8,p. 6]. Nevertheless,much opular upportor uch ourses s rooted nthehopethat hey anaffecttudents' utureonduct19,p. 275; 22,pp. 23 and50]. A case inpoint s that fthecertifiedublic ccountantisciplined yhisprofes-sional ssociation,heAICPA, for solicitingngagementsy etter nd.. conduct[ing] practiceunder 'fictitious ame."' His "sentence" was"totake course nprofessionalthics" 5,p. 274].The motivationsf thepersons nvolvedn appliedethics anotherkind fansweroour uestionvary considerably.s Callahan ndBokreport:In someprofessionalchoolsthe mainmotive for ntroducingapplied thics] eems tohave been someexternal ressure, articularlypressureo ntroducethics norder hat raduatesmight ehavebetterntheir rofessionalives" [8,p. 47]. In some cases professionalssocia-tions r academic ccreditinggenciesbring heir nfluenceo bear. nother ases suchcoursesmaybe institutednpart orpublic magepur-poses.Orsuchcoursesmight e institutedor easonsargelynternalotheuniversity,o enrich rofessionallyrientedurricula,r to bolsterdeclining umanitiesnrollments ith rofessionallyrelevant"ourses[7,p. 25; 21,p. 21].Concerningtudents'motivationsor akinguch ourses,McMahon'ssurveyf557 schools hows hat 1.7 percentf tudentespondentsookthem ecause heywere equired, hile 8.4 percentwanted omevalueoriented ourseto balance their rogram,"nd 5.6 percent elieved twouldhelpadvance heir areers 21,p. 148].Possible Goals ofApplied thics

Probablyhemost ignificantnswer oourquestion, owever,s thatofthe nticipatedutcomes fsuch ourses s statedntermsfcurriculargoals. These have a particularlymportantole because theyusuallyderivefrom hepersonsmost ikely o shapethosecourses, heactualinstructorsrthe uthorshey ead.The most requentlyentionedoalscan be helpfullyrganizednrelation o three elated etsof alternativesor n terms fthree pectra, achdefined yitstwopoles.The first pectrum oses thechoice between eeingappliedethicscourses s descriptiver as normativenterprises.lthoughmost ersonsinthefield gree hat uch oursesmust e inpart escriptive,ew rguethat heymust e, oreven canbe, descriptivenly 22,p. 11; 31].


4/18

Goals ofApplied thicsCourses 495

I. Generalcharacter descriptive ---- normativeofgoals:

II. Impactn enhance shapeagent: autonomy------agentonly morally

III. Dimension (cognitive) (affective) (active)ofmoral powers f - - - -moral alues - - -morallife moral convictions choiceaffected: reasoning feelings and actionFIG. 1.

Three Spectra for dentifyingApplied Ethics GoalsThesecond pectrumfferslternativeaysofunderstandinghenor-mative lementncoursegoals.At one end thegoal is simplyoenablethe tudento become responsibleutonomous oral gent; tthe therend thegoal is toaffect hevery ubstancefthe tudent's uturemoral

choices.An influentialecent tatementupportinghe formerptioncomesfrom allahan ndBok intheHasting enter's tudy fthe each-ingof ethics nAmerican igherducation. hey istfivegoalsfor uchcourses: timulatinghe moral magination,ecognizingthical ssues,developing nalytical kills,eliciting sense of moralobligationndpersonalresponsibility,nd tolerating and resisting disagreementandambiguity8,pp. 48-51]. Thesegoalsarepart fthe arger oal ofprovidingtudents withthoseconcepts nd analytical killsthatwillenable hem ograpplewith road thical heorynattemptingo resolveboth ersonalndprofessionalilemmas,swell s toreflectn themoralissuesfacinghe argerociety"8,p. 48]. ButCallahan ndBokexcludeany ttemptsoaffecttudentonduct irectly.We haveconcluded hatthis changingtudentehavior]s not n appropriatexplicit oal forcourse nethics" 8,pp. 54, 80]. Thedesired utonomys achieved nlywhen tudentsevelop hetoolsthat enablethem ocritique,ndto beina positionoreject,notonly heir resentmoral onvictions,ut lsothose fthe eacher"8,p. 61]. Theyfurthertate hat thegoalswehaveproposed ... fortheteachingof ethics do not entailanyconclusion thatthedetails f some moral ystems,thical heories, rmoralrulesaremore orrect han thers"8,p. 56; 19,pp. 275-78].Callahanand Bok do notmake clearwhetherheir nsistencen athorough-goingoral utonomyndtheir esistance o studentndoctri-nation regroundedntheir nderstandingfmoral gency,n the up-posedpluralismfourcurrentituation,ntheultimatendeterminacyf


5/18


ethical/moralorms, r nthe nnumerableomplexitiesfvirtuallynyconcretemoraldilemma.But tsgroundingside,this tatementvokedsharp riticismor tsapparentmoralneutrality.Thesheer mptinessfthis ision fethics,tsunwillingnesso assert hat omethingsrerightandotherswrong, husbecomes nunwittingllyofmoral ndifferenceandworse,"writesWilliamJ.Bennett,urrently.S. SecretaryfEdu-cation 3,p. 64]. Some also believethat his neutral" osition ctuallychampionsts owndistinctiveubstantivealues, argelyhoseoftoler-ance,openness nd, ntheeyeofthecritic,ndecision3,p. 64]. Suchcriticsttemptoarticulateoalscloser otheother nd ofthis pectrumwhere ffectinghe tudent'sctualmoral onvictionsndchoices s seenasdesirable. ut hisatterptionvokes harges f indoctrination"romthose lsewhere nthe pectrum.We will returnothe mportantssuesarising n this pectrum.Forthose eekingubstantivelyoaffecthe tudent'smoral ife, herearethree easonably istinct,fnotultimatelyeparable argetsor heirefforts. t one end of thisthirdpectrums thestudent'sapacity ormoral easoning. ttheothernd arethe tudent'sctualmoral hoicesandactions. n themiddle re thestudent'smorally elevant eelings,values,andcommitments.hus this pectrumunsfrom hecognitive,throughhe ffective,othe ctive omponentsfthemoral ife.Thesethree temsmaynotconstitutespectrumn theusualsense-e.g., themiddle tem eemsnot o be a midpointn themovementrom nepoleto theother.We alsomust ememberhat lthoughonceptually emayseparatehese imensionsf hemoral elf, nfact heyllreside na stateofcomplexnterconnectednessithin singlemoral gent 12,p. 300].Nevertheless,t is helpful tthispreliminarytage o speakofthese sdifferentimensions ftheagent.Theattemptoaffect ow the tudent easons bout thical ndmoralmatterss the eastcontroversialere,becausemany ducators elievethat ifferenttyles fmoral easoninganbe presentedo,evenurgeduponstudents ithoutffectinghesubstance ftheirmoral hoicesorinterferingith heirmoral utonomy.hispositionssumes hat tylesofmoral easoningrepresentedna waythat eaves the tudent ree ochooseamong hem rtochoosenoneofthem, nd/or hat uchstylesof reasoningre themselvesmorally eutral.f theseconditions old,this ptions close tothat ndofthe econd pectrum hich ocuses nenhancinggent utonomy,or urely hat gent s more rulyutono-mouswhohasknowledgefvariousmethodsfmoral easoning. ut tis not clear that heweighing f different odes of moralreasoningandchoosing mongthem re morally eutral rocesses. f not,then


6/18


this ption oesbelong nourthirdpectrum.hedifficultyf ocatingthis tem onsistentlynonly neofour pectras illustratedyCallahanand Bok, who seemto argueexclusively oraugmentingheagent'sautonomy8,p. 60] andyet lso argue or ultivatingnstudents senseofmoral bligationndpersonal esponsibility.t is not tall clearwhata morally eutral, ontentlesssenseof moralobligationndpersonalresponsibility"ouldbe. Furthermore,t seemsquiteunlikelyhat necanargue ormoral utonomysgenerallynderstood ithoutrguingoror presumingome substantivemoralvalues, whichthe autonomousagent, implyby assuming nd defending is or herautonomy,willalso adopt.The otherargetsfmoral ransformationn this pectrumrehelpfullyviewednrelationothe ognitivene ustdiscussed. he choicebetweenthe ognitivend the middle ffectiveptionwillfrequentlyollow helinebetween isciplines. hoseprimarilyoncerned bout hemattersfethical easoningustdiscussedwillmost ften se the erm ethics" ortheir ndeavor ndwill nmost ases representhilosophyr,a bit essconsistently,eligious tudies epartments.heywill,as Arthuraplannotes, e predominantlyoncerned bouthow one ustifiesmoraludg-ments. hose who focusmoreontheaffective imensionsf themorallife,on clarifyingalues studentslreadyhold,oron generatinglass-room ituationsoprompttudents o reassess heir urrentalueswillmorefrequentlyse the anguage f"values" andwilloverwhelminglycomefrom epartmentsfpsychologyndeducation,ncluding eligiouseducation11,30].BruceSuttle uggestshat he atter re more ikely osee moral decisions" s similar opersonal astes rpreferencesatherthan s therational, rinciple-basedecisions hilosopherseemtoenvi-sion 31,pp. 7, 11-12].Persons doptinghese ifferentpproaches ill,of course,responddifferentlyo ourquestions oncerningheidenti-fication,heassessment,nd the measurementf thegoals of appliedethics ourses.Thethird,active" ption n this pectrumeedoccupy sonly riefly,becausefew rgue hat lassroom nstruction-theettingf most nter-esttous here-either can orshoulddo muchdirectlyoalter he ctualmoral onduct f students31]. We candistinguishhis ption rom omeofthosediscussed boveby invokinghefrequentlyetdistinctione-tween ethics" nd "morality."Morality" ften eferso actualmoralchoice nd conduct nd to those onsiderationsuch s moral alues andcommitmentshichdirectlyhapethem. Ethics" n theother and soften sedtoreferothesecondary ctivityfreflectingn, ustifying,andcriticizinguch onduct nd considerations.ccordingothis sage,


7/18


our hirdption ndperhapshemiddle affective"nefall n the reaofmorality, hereas hefirstne dealingwithmoralreasoninghouldbelabeled ethics."TheQuestion fAppropriate oalsOther mportantssues arise when we movebeyond implynotingpossible oalsfor pplied thics ourses ndaskhowwe aretodistinguishbetweenhemore nd the ess appropriatenes. Several imited ut tillsignificantonsiderationsreworthyfbriefnoteas we approach hisquestion. neisthefit etweenhegoalspursuednsuch ourses ndthesocietal timuli oted bove for nstitutinghem.fsuchexternal timuliare nvoked o ustifycourse,t sentirelyppropriateoexpect hegoalsof the ourse oinclude onsiderationfpossible olutionso the thicalproblems resentednthecourse.Two other onsiderationsoncern urabilityo achieve ertain oals, particularlyhose nvolvingctualmoralchangenstudents. he firstonsiderationswhether ecan effectmoralchange fa specificntendedortnstudents;he econd,whether ecandemonstratehat uchchangehas occurrednd measuret. The formerraises numerous uestions oncerninghedynamics f moraldevel-opment: oes itcontinuehroughhe ge at whichmost tudents ouldbe studyingpplied thics, r s itvirtuallyompletetan earlierge?Isitsubject o directntentionalntervention,ris it determinedyforcesbeyondur ontrol?Whilewe cannot ursue hese uestions ere, ersonsarguingor ctualmoral hange s a goalwillneed to articulatetheoryofmoralgrowthhatcan makethisgoal a reasonable ne to pursue[27,p. 6].The secondrelated ssue s whether e can substantiate,an actuallymeasureny mpactwe aim atorclaim to have made.For themoment,however,we willsimply ote hatwhatever ifficultiesre met nmea-suring utcomes, hey re notdecisive n determininghatgoals aremorallyppropriate.t most hey anshowwhetherhepursuitf somegoals s unwise ecauseof thedifficulty,venthe mpossibilityfestab-lishinghe uccessoftheeffort.A majorconsiderationn determiningoals for ppliedethics s thesettingn which hecourses reoffered. he appropriateoals of suchactivitiesre,to a considerableegree, etting ependent. ollegesanduniversities,or xample, houlddealvery ircumspectlyith nygoalswhich pproach ndoctrination.heir traditionf open inquiryhouldmilitategainst nysuchclosing ff f themoral onversation.Butconcern or reenquiryrequentlyndevenappropriatelylayslesser ole notherettings.nthe rofessionalchoolwherepplied thics


8/18


often ccursunder herubric fprofessionalesponsibility,he ituationisdifferentecauseoftheprofessions'raditionalndorsementf a setofvalueswhich elp o dentifyhem sprofessions10,pp. 15-76]. Inthissetting,pplied thics imed at interpretingnd evenpropagatingheseprofessionalalues ndthe odes which mbodyhemwill pproachwhatsomecall indoctrination;or therst s simply rofessionalocialization[23,25]. nthis ituationhegoal inpart s topassonobjectivenforma-tion.Even this ort f"indoctrination"an be challenged,ut learly heprofessionalchool has its owndistinctiveynamicsnsuch matters.tmight e argued,forexample,that o choose a professions alreadydefined y ts owntraditionndbythe arger ociety,s tosubscribe othosedistinctivealueswhichmake t thatparticularrofession. husapplied thics nthis ettingan be seen as theclarificationnd elabo-ration fvaluesthe tudentasalready ccepted rthe rticulationftheconditionsfmembershipntheprofession,atherhan s indoctrinationof themore bjectionableort.Insome asescorporate oalsfor pplied thicswillresemble cademicones.Forexample, nethics eminar t theNorthwesternational ankofMinneapolisimed tenhancingmployees' ompetencen dentifyingandanalyzinghevalueconflictsnvolvednmostmanagerialilemmas.There s no mentionnthereportsn the seminar fspecific ompanypolicies or substantive ommitments hichwere to be propagated[26,p. 1]. In fact, heemployeesnvolvedweresimultaneouslyonsti-tuted s taskforces odevelop ndground olicyrecommendationsorthebank.Other orporations,houghossibly lso aiming t mprovingmploy-ees' analyticalnddecision-makingkills,make lear hat uch ctivitiesaretohappenwithin ndto be supportivefestablishedompany olicy.Forexample, heAlliedCorporation'sthics eminars intendedtohelpmanagers nderstandhecorporation'statedpoliciesconcerningro-scribed ctivitiess well as itspoliciesconcerninghefirm's oluntarysocial responsibilities"17,p. 10]. This objective n some ways ap-proachesndoctrination.utcorporationsuiteproperlyo notalwaysoperate nacademic tandards.nfact, eenfromneperspective,hereis somethinguitecommendableboutcorporationshichpublicly r-ticulate heirmoral ommitmentsndthen eriouslyndertakeo nstitu-tionalize hem nto corporatethos.TheUniversity,ndoctrinationndMoralFormationWecomefinallyothemost omplex etofconsiderationsffectinghesearch or ppropriateoalsfor pplied thics ourses those generated


9/18


bytheencounter etweenmoral/ethicalducation nd theuniversity'scommitmento free nd open inquiry.Among he distinctiveommit-ments hat efinehe ontemporaryesternniversitys itsdedicationothepursuitf truthndunderstandinghroughree esearch, iscussion,and debate mong ll qualified articipants.n thefaceof tthis eemsto forbid ny indoctrinationn whichvalues, rules,or solutions representeds the orrectnes. Suchactionwould end o closeoff atherthan o encourage ree nquirynddebate. n order o understandhispotentialonflict emust xamine losely he oncept f ndoctrinationand therelation etween heuniversitynditsdefiningalues.Theword indoctrination"ll tooeasily slipsbackandforthetweendescriptivendnormativeses.Normativelyt smost ften sedpejora-tivelyochallenge orms f nstructionedisapprovef,usually ecausewebelieve hey iolate hemoral utonomyfstudentsnd nhibitatherthan oster ealmoral rowthndmaturity.omeoccasionallyttemptouse "indoctrination"na postive rat east neutralense norderoasserta group's ightopasson its onvictionso tsnewmembers, hetherheyoung r converts. ut thisnormativeeclaimingf thewordusuallyinvolves estrictingtsdecriptivepplicationsothatmore oercive ormsof intervention ust be designatedby some negativeterm uch as"conditioning"r"brain-washing."Descriptivelyindoctrination"s appliedto a variety f procedureswhich reso labeled ither ecauseof themethodsmployedrthegoalsbehind hem.Methodsmost ikely obe so labeled re thosewhich eemto aim at transferringeliefsand values from n authorityigure ostudents ho are expected o acceptthemforreasonsother han heirinherentersuasivenessr the tudent'sbilityo validate hem ycriticalreflection.Indoctrinationakes omany orms ndemploysomanymethodshatit svery ifficultoeradicatettotally.omebelieve hat pplied thicsteachingrom religious rtheologicaltandpointsparticularlyuspecton thiscount 21,p. 49; 24]. However, hissuspicion eflects otharatheraundicedand limited iew of what s beingdone in religious/theological thics,and a naivete about the frequency f quite un-selfconsciousndoctrinationnsupposedlymoreneutral isciplines. orexample,WilliamJ. Bennett harges hat he Callahan-Bok osition,whileon the face of it opposedto indoctrination,s itself form findoctrination,oweverwidelytsunderlyingaluesmighteacceptednthe liberal" ircles o which tlargely peaks 3,pp. 64-65; 8,p. 60].Whether ennett'sssessmentfthat eportscorrectrnot, heproblemto whichhepoints s a real one.


10/18


Given that ndoctrinationannot lwaysbe reliablydentifiedy itscontentr tsmethods, emay ry odistinguishtby tsgoals.Philoso-pherR.M. Harehassuccinctlytatedhe entralssuehere: the ducatoris tryingoturnhildrennto dults; he ndoctrinators tryingomakethemntoperpetualhildren"16,p. 123].Giventhewidespreadgree-ment hat pplied thics houldfacilitatetudent rowthoward thicalmaturitynd competentmoraldecisionmaking,ndoctrinationn thishardest ense willrarely e supporteds a legitimate oal.But while voiding heScyllaofblatantndoctrination,e needalsobewaretheCharybdis f lettinghelabel of "indoctrination"ecomedescriptivelyo general14] while etainingtsfullnegativeweight-that ll forms f fosteringalues and moralcommitmentsr of evenpresentinghem n a positive ight re ruled ut. Whatpath hen s leftopentous? I believewe must rgue itherhat omeforms findoctri-nation reunobjectionable,ven audable,orthat ome forms f inten-tional ransmittingfvalues do not onstitutendoctrination.ecause ofthe xtreme ifficultyftotallyliminatinghenegative ssociations f"indoctrination,"here akethe atter oute.To understandhevalue dimensionfuniversities,nemust onsiderthenature f societalexistence, oruniversitieso not emerge n avacuum.They re a creation fa society, fa culture.Andpart fwhatis needed omakea group fpersonsnto societys someconsensuson fundamentalalues-a consensus bout whichhumanpursuitsreworthwhile;boutwhichforms f conduct re admirable,whicharetolerable,nd which re neither;bout whatstandardshouldgovernsocialpolicymaking; nd,mostpertinentotheuniversity,boutwhatforms f nquiryndknowledgeremost ikely osupportnd mplementtheseother onvictions.Withouthisvalue element ocieties ack theinternaloherencewhich nables hem o survive verthe ongrun.AsJamesRachelshas written,Thereare some principles hatmustbeacceptedf ocietystoexist."He thenuggestshat ince public choolsare instrumentsf society" tmaybe appropriateo teach there hoseprincipleswhich re "necessary orsocial living" 29,p. 679]. Truth-tellingndrefrainingrom iolence oward thers re two of hisexam-ples.Notall collegesand universitiesre "public" nRachel's sense;yetmany fthem re. Andmost thershroughheir ources ffundingndtheir ublic tances oward he ociety eflectnextensivedentificationwithnda considerabletakenthedominantocietal rrangements.hisdoesnotmean hat igherducation s orshould e anuncriticaloosterofthe ocietys it s. Infact, f tbecomes uch, tbetraysnothermajor


11/18


dimensionf tshistoricalndcontemporaryalling that fservingsa critic f theway things re and ofpointingoward better tateofaffairs. sRichardMorrill as written:Insettingnd mplementingheireducational oals, colleges and universitiesostulate, ven if uncon-sciously,neamongmany ossiblevisions f human oodbypositingsystemfacademicvalues,byassertingkind f human aithnreason,truthndintelligibility"22,p. 134].Whetherhat isionof thehumangood s incomplete armony ith r s somewhat iscordant ith hat fthe arger ociety,t reflects hevirtualnevitabilityf theuniversity'sparticipationnthe ngoingonversationboutwhat ormsfknowledge,relations, ctions,and social arrangementsre humanlyworthynddesirable.Acknowledginghis fact eads to greater ealism boutthesociety-universityelation. As JosephMargolis puts it,"... by dismiss-ingthefiction fa neutralmoral nstruction,e areobliged oconfrontagaintheorganic onnection etween he modes of education nd thesocial andpoliticalife fthe ommunityhat ustainshem"18,p. 20].The student s a member fthesociety nd a participantnthe uni-versity,annot scape either heprocesses r theresults fmoraldis-course.Thestudent'snly ptionsreto become nactive ndcompetentparticipantn the discussion or to submitpassively-perhaps evenunknowingly-towhatothers ecide. Thus institutionsfhigher du-cation avenot nly rightut duty,nthe nehand, o the ocietyndto themselves inthenameof thevaluesthat hapethem andon theother and, o the student ho must hart course n relation o thosevalues,to enable the student o become a competentnd activepartic-ipant.Whatever ducation s required or uchparticipationould eemto bevirtuallyheopposite f ndoctrination,t east ccordingo Hare'sgoal-based efinitionsf ndoctrinationndeducation.And that emainstrue venwhen hat ducation oes beyond roceduralrmethodologicalmattersfethics o include ubstantive oralvalues.Therefore,feducation,ncluding igherducation,ponsoredyandundertakennbehalf fthe arger ociety egitimatelyncludes reparingstudentsoparticipatenthe ontinuing oral onversationhathapes hesociety,we shouldhave even less difficultyn ustifyinguchmorallyformativectivitiesnthe reaofapplied thics.Oneobviousground orthis ssertions thatnapplied thics ourses, nstructorsnd curricularmaterialsirectly,venself-consciouslyddress ituationsf valuecon-flict,na sensebringingortionsfthe ublicmoral onversationirectlyinto heclassroom or ystematicndcritical crutiny.Perhaps ess obviously, xamination,ventransmissionf values ismore asily ustifiednapplied thics ecauseofthe ectorsf ocietal ife


12/18


treatedhere.As the abel s currentlysed,applied thics ourses xam-ineprimarilyheprofessionsndbusiness. n light f their istory,hegoalsoftheir rofessionalctivity,heirocationnthe ociety'sife, ndthe laims urrently adebythem,t can certainlye said of thetradi-tional rofessionsuch s law, medicine,nd theministry,hat hey othare ndshould evalue-shapedocio-moralndertakings10].This snotas obvious n the ase of businesswhich asa rather ifferentistoryndemerges rom differentocietaldynamic.Nevertheless,een as itmustbe, inrelationosocietalneeds nd nterdependencies,usiness oomustbepartlynderstoodnrelationovalues values hat hebusiness nter-prise resupposes13],valuesthat usiness erves, nd valuesthathapethe elationsfbusiness o tsvarious onstituencies,ncluding inallyhetotal ociety9].If t strue hat usiness, he raditionalrofessions,ndthose spiringprofessionsatternedfterhemrevalue-ladenndvalue-directednder-takingsn this ociety, hent s difficultosee howthe tudy fappliedethics n thoseareascan be value neutral.And if suchcourses imatpreparingtudents s future rofessionalsr businesspersons o par-ticipate ullynthose reas, ncludingnthemoral iscussions hat riseinthem,t sreasonable oargue hat ot nly he xplication,ut lsothedefense,ven he osteringfthose alues, sa legitimateart fthe ask.Otherwise,whatthesociety hroughicensure egulationsndgeneralpublic xpectations,nd what heprofessionshroughodes of conductand tatementsfpurpose ffirm,s ignoredrdenied hroughhe rucialmechanismsf higher nd professionalducationwhichpreparenewparticipantsor heseprofessions.Thepositiont whichwehavenow rrivediessomewhereetween hetwoextremesejected bove. On theone hand,any ndoctrinationhatcloses offratherhanfacilitatespenconversationmong utonomousmoral gents oncerningppropriatealuechoices nd moral ecisionssunacceptable. t thevery east,such courses houldnotofferpecificsolutions odilemmas s thoughherewerenoother efensiblenes or nsucha manner hat hestudentmust itherccept hesolutionsr with-draw rom he onversation. t theotherxtreme,heproposed ositionrejects he dea thatvalue-neutralthics s either ossibleor desirable.Positivelyut, heposition aken ere s that hose reasofactivity-primarilyusiness ndthe rofessions considerednapplied thics,ndbeyondhemhe ntirenterprisefeducation ndfinallyven he ocietalexistence resupposedybusiness, heprofessions,ndeducation tselfare all value-ladenmoral ndertakings.hus t s appropriateor ppliedethics oursesnotonlyto describe hevalues inherentnbusiness nd


13/18


professionalctivities, ut,withinimits, o advocatethem.By theirpursuitfhigherducation tudentseclare heir esire oparticipatenthe ociety.Whenproperlyiewed, uchparticipationat leastsuch sthe ocietywouldwant oencourageis a matter otonlyofacquiringneutralnowledgend technicalkills, ut lsoofsharingn those alueswhich oldthosevarious ctivitiesogetherna generallyoherentunc-tioningwholeandorient hem owardwhat hat ociety nderstandsshumanwell-being. ywhat ightoessociety ress tspreferenceor hismode fparticipation?imply nthebasis of tsmaking igherducationandthestudent'subsequent unctioningn thesociety ossibleat all.Butthisofcoursemustbe donein a waythat cknowledgesertaintruthsboutmoral ife in modemsociety: hatmoralknowledge ndinsightrerarely inal nd so mustbe stated ndpursuedn a fashionwhich ncourages urtherlarificationndrefinement;hat ocietytselfis a dynamic eality hich ver ime roperlyeflectshangenthevaluesitchampionsnd embodies; hat eal moral gency nvolves nformedparticipationnthe ngoingmoral onversationfthe ociety ot ircum-scribed y unchallengeable oral rthodoxiesrbythreatenedanctionsagainstdissidents;nd that hegeneralvalue consensuswhichmakessocietal xistence ossibledoes not nmost ases leaddirectlynd com-pellinglyo the correctnswer oparticular oralproblems.Current esting evices andResultsEducationalccountabilityequireshat alk bout urricularoalsbebackedbyappropriateestingrocedures. estingnapplied thics s initsformativetages,but attentiono itscurrenttate s essential o anyfuturerogress.Some such outcome testing"s largely necdotal,beingbased oneither pontaneousr solicited tudent esponses o general uestionsconcerninghebenefits fa particularourse.Such "data"seldom omefrom epresentativeamples,are virtuallympossible o quantify,ndhence renot amenable o replicationr confirmationn other tudies.However, iven he omplexityfthemoral elf nd thediverseways tcan be affected,necdotal videncemaybe ouronlymeans f access tosomedesirable ubject-perceivedmpacts27,28].The mostobjectivedevices test hestudent's actual nowledge f agiven rofession'sode ordetermineowclosely student'sesponse oa hypotheticalilemma onforms o the code's standards23,25]. Butwhat uch testsgain in objectivityy testing nowledge f a specificdocument,heyose inpotentialemotenessromheactualmoral on-victionsnd conduct fthestudent,ecause suchknowledge bviously


14/18


can bemasteredor estingurposeswithoutaving ignificantmpact nthe gent'smoralbeing.Themostwe can sayabout uchknowledgesthattmaybenecessaryormorallyesponsiblerofessionalractice. utit s clearly otsufficient.T. R. Martineportssing notherormf eeminglybjectiveestwithbusiness tudents ho took worequiredthics ourses 20]. The studentwas asked o ndicatewhetherhe ction akenna series fscenarioswasdefinitely,robably, efinitelyot,or probably otethical.A secondstatingfeachquestion skedwhetherhe tudentefinitelyrprobablywould,ordefinitelyrprobablywouldnottake he ame action s por-trayednthe cenario.Oneproblem ith he bjectivityfthis est s thatthe best" nswerneachcase was establishedbythe xpertudgmentof a group fprofessors hoseprimaryrancillaryisciplines ethics."For those ensitiveothe omplexityfactualmoral ilemmas,he deaof "expertudgment" s competento establish ne objectivelybest"answerwillbequite roblematic.huswhen he est esults ail osupporttheprinciple ypothesisfthestudy,hat business tudents ill showsignificantlyoremprovementntheirbilityoanalyze thical usinessproblemshanwillengineeringtudents,"t is notclearwhatwe havelearned.Are the nterventions,hichwereratherraditionalcademicethics ourses, herebyhown o be ineffective?r are the estingnstru-ment's ssumptionsbout ome "best"answer hown o be inadequate?Addingothe onfusionsthe act hat hehypothesispeaks fthe bilityto analyze,whereas hetesting eviceseeks"theright"nswer.Whilerelated,hese wo arenotthesameoutcome.Greateronceptual laritywillhave toprecede ess ambiguous estingesults.The mostfrequentlysed testsfor uchcourses ppearto be JamesRest'sDefiningssues Test DIT) [30,p. 30] andother ffspring2] ofLawrence ohlberg'snalysis fthe tages fmoral easoning.uchtestsaimnot at gettinghecorrectnswer o stated ilemmas, utat deter-mininghe evelofreasoningtwhich he tudentpproachesheprob-lem, evelsrangingrom preconventionalstageone" based argely nthe gent'smmediateelf-interestoa postconventionalixth tageusinguniversalthical rinciples.hese ests redesignedo dentifynymove-ment fthe tudent'smoral easoningmong he tages esultingromspecificntervention.avidBoydclaimswith uch ests o have substan-tiated ositivempacts rom he elativelyhortnterventionfan eleven-week ourse.This s supported ypre- ndpost-testsf the xperimentalgroup ndof two control roups 4,p. 29]. Suchcarefullyubstantiatedresultsmustbe takenseriously.But if-as seems to be claimedbyKohlbergndhisfollowers advances hroughhe tages renotustthecognitive atterf earningohandle ew oncepts, ut nvolve he ctual


15/18


adoptingf a new moralperspective,hen uchquickly ttained esultsruncounter o ourexperience f thegenerallymore eisurely ace ofsignificant oral ransformation.ostwhouse this pproach remorecomfortablesingsuch tests o rank-orderarge categories fpersonsratherhan o test he mpact fspecificnterventions.fteromparingthe cores fvarious uchgroupings,estwrites: Themost owerfulndconsistentorrelate f moraludgment evelopmentn theresearch asbeen formal ducation.... However, the researchto date does not indi-cate specifically ow formal choolinghas this effect-that s, whatspecific xperiencesr conditionsromote evelopment"30,p. 32].SuchKohlberg-basedests, lthoughseful,nvolve otentiallyignifi-cant onceptual roblems,which anonlybe mentioned ere.Theyaremostfundamentallyhallengedwhentheadequacyof their nderlyingunderstandingf moralitynd moraldevelopments questioned.Themost radical such challengehas been issuedby Carol Gilligan.Shecharges hatKohlberg's iew ofmoralityndmoraldevelopments adecidedlymasculine onstruction,ulminatingnabstractrinciplesndrights,nd that t gnores more ontextualnd relationalnderstandingofmorality ocusing n responsibilityopersons.This latter eglectedapproachs, accordingoher,more haracteristicf women 15].Buteven fthis hallenge an be met,other ignificantroblems e-main.The chief nes concern hesupposedvalueneutralityfdifferentmethods fmoral easoning. anthe hoiceofa style r methodf moralanalysis ndreasoning eally e a morally eutral hoice?Can themovefrom elf-centerednesso an awareness f society's nd other ersons'legitimatemoralclaims,and ultimatelyo universal thicalprinciplesoccurwithout ransformationf themoral gent t a quitefundamentalmoral evel?Are notthe higher" tages nKohlberg's tructurehoughttobe bettermoremoral?) han he lower"ones? cannot esolve hesequestions ere;mypoint s simply hat nless nd until hese uestionsareanswered,we will notunderstandully itherwhatwe aretryingodo in such coursesor what we are testing or whenwe testthe out-comes.Clearly his pproach oes notsolvethe ssuesof ndoctrinationor of value-neutralducation nd testing aisedearlier; t simply e-locates hem.ClosingCommentsn TestingThreegeneral omments ill close ourtreatmentf thetestingssue.First, significantapwill remain etweenwhatever e can teach ndtest or- be itknowledge,methods freasoning,revenprofessed oral


16/18


stance and actualmoral hoices andaction 4,p. 30]. Applied thicscannotdequatelyreat reven ccount or he nnumerablelements hatgo into ctualmoraldecision-makingnd action.Second,testingmethods nddevices n applied thics nd inmoral/values ducationngeneral recurrentlyominatedythe pproachesfthe ducational/psychologicalideofthe nterprise,argelyo theneglectof morephilosophicallynd theologicallyrientedpproaches.Here Isimply bserve hisfact ndsuggest hat hecausesandimplicationsfthis ituationmight rofitablye investigated.Finally and related othepointustmade the elationetweenhevarious ypes f testingust treated nd themoretraditionalssayex-aminationsongestablishednmost cademic thics ourses houldnotautomaticallye assumedto be theevolutionaryne of the moread-vanceddisplacing he nowoutmoded.Restwouldappearto speakformany upportersf theDIT and similarnstrumentshenhe saysof thetraditional xaminations,papers, etc., that this sort of "informalevaluation does not meet . fundamentalequirementsfcollectingand interpretingata in a systematic, eliable and valid fashion"[30,p. 30]. There re obviousdifferencesetween he woapproaches,butsimply o udge either ne bythe standards f the otherwillyieldpredictablenduninformativeesults. ach must e assessed ntermsfthe ask orwhich twasdesigned. esting ormpactsnthemoral eingofthe tudentsobviously uitedifferentromestinghe tudent'sbilitycognitivelyo dealwith givenbodyofliterature.Inthis egard,t srevealinghat one fthe uthorsited uggestshatscores ntheDIT orotherKohlberg-derivedests e usedfor ssigninggrades.They recorrectnavoiding uch link, orgradingtudentsnthebasisoftheirmoral dvancementrsensitivityouldbe intolerablein ight ftheprevailingiew oftheuniversitynd ts ask.But t s bothstrikingnd puzzlingthatnone acknowledges hattraditionalestinghas been orientedowardssessingtudents'ognitivemasteryfthema-terialsnd therefore ust e viewed nrelation otheperhaps npleasantbut ssential ask fgrading. iven hegoals they osit or thics ourses,it s not urprisinghat allahan nd Bokdefend he raditional ethodsof evaluationn comparisono the more recent mpirical pproaches[7,p. 27]. But that references more sserted han efended. he con-flict etween est's tooeasydismissal ndCallahan nd Bok's tooeasydefense ftraditionalestingwillonlybe solvedbymore arefulworkon articulatingheseveral hingswe aretryingoaccomplishnmoral/valueseducation,ncludingppliedethics, ndon how best to testforthose utcomes.


17/18


References1. Baier,K. "IndoctrinationndJustification."nEducationalJudgements:apers inthe hilosophyfEducation, dited yJ.F.Doyle,pp. 74-89. Boston:RoutledgeKeganPaul, 1973.2. Bebeau,M.J. Dental Ethical ensitivityest.Privatelyirculated.3. Bennett,W. J."Getting thics."Commentary,0 (December1980),62-65.4. Boyd, D. P. "Improving thicalAwarenessthroughhe Business and SocietyCourse."Business ndSociety, 0 and21 (Winter/Spring981-82),27-31.5. Briloff, .J. "Codes of Conduct:TheirSoundandTheirFury." n Ethics,FreeEnterprise nd Public Policy, edited by R. T. DeGeorge and J.A. Pichler,pp. 264-87. New York:OxfordUniversityress,1978.6. Callahan,D., et al. "EthicsTestsforMedical Boards:The Stateof theQuestion."TheHastingsCenterReport,13 June, 983)20-33.7. Callahan,D., andS. Bok. "The RoleofAppliedEthics nLearning." hange, 11(September979),23-27.8. . The Teaching of Ethics in Higher Education: The Teaching of Ethics, I.Hastings-on-Hudson,ew York:TheHastings enter, 980.9. Camenisch, . F. "BusinessEthics:OnGettingotheHeart f theMatter." usinessandProfessional thicsJournal,1 (Fall, 1981),59-69.10. . GroundingProfessional Ethics in a Pluralistic Society. New York: HavenPublishing orp., 1983.11. Caplan,A. L. "Ethics' nd Values' inEducation: re heConcepts istinct ndDoesItMakea Difference?"ducationalTheory, 9 (Summer 979),245-53.12. Churchill,. R. "TheTeaching f Ethics nd MoralValues nTeaching." ournal fHigher ducation,53 (May/June982),296-306.13. DeGeorge,R. T. "What s theAmerican usinessValueSystem?" ournal fBusi-nessEthics,1 (November 982),267-75.

14. Delattre, .J. and W.J. Bennett. Where theValues MovementGoes Wrong."Change, 11 February979),38-43.15. Gilligan,C. In a Differentoice. Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversityress,1982.16. Hare,R. M. "AdolescentsntoAdults." n MoralEducation, dited yB. I. Chazanand J.F. Soltis,pp. 116-24. New York:TeachersCollegePress,1973.17. Jones, . G. "A BusinessEthics eminar orExecutives tAlliedCorporation."nDoing Ethics n Business,editedby D. G. Jones,pp. 3-25. Cambridge,Mass.:Oelgeschlager, unn ndHain, Publishers,nc., 1982.18. Margolis,J. "On theMoralNeutralityf Moral Instruction."n proceedingsf"Value ssues nEducation onference."October 6-28, 1978).Center or he tudyofValues,UniversityfDelaware.19. Martin,M. W. "WhyShouldEngineeringthics Be Taught?" ngineeringdu-cation,71 (January981),275-78.20. . "Do Courses in EthicsImprovethe EthicalJudgment f Students?"BusinessandSociety, 0 and 21 (Winter/Spring981-82), 17-26.


18/18


21. McMahon, T.FE, Reporton theTeachingof Socio-Ethical ssues in CollegiateSchools fBusiness/Publicdministration.harlottesville,a.: Center or he tudyofAppliedEthics,UniversityfVirginia, 975.22. Morrill, . L. TeachingValues nCollege. San Francisco:Jossey-Bassublishers,1980.23. Morris,R.T., and B. J. Sherlock. Declineof Ethics nd the Rise ofCynicismnDental School." In Dominant ssues in Medical Sociology, editedby H. D.Schwartz nd C. S. Kart,pp. 158-65. Reading,Mass.: Addison-WesleyublishingCo., 1978.24. Nash,L. "Ethicswithout he Sermon."HarvardBusinessReview,59 (November-December 981),78-90.25. "National onferencef Bar ExaminersMulti-staterofessionalesponsibilityx-amination."hicago:American arAssociation, o date.26. "NorthwesternationalBank of Minneapolis thicsSeminar:Report nd Evalu-ation."PrivatelyirculatedeportMay 8, 1981).27. Penn,W. "Kohlbergnd Professional thics."Privatelyirculatedaper.28. Purcell,T. V. "Do Courses n BusinessEthicsPayOff?"CaliforniaManagementReview,19 Summer 977),50-58.29. Rachels,J."MoralEducationnPublicSchools."JournalfPhilosophy,9 (1982),

678-79.30. Rest,J.R. "A Psychologistooks at theTeaching f Ethics."TheHastingsCenterReport,12 February982),29-36.31. Suttle,B. B. "An Analysis f ExistingMoral Education rograms." npublishedpaperpresentedt 1980 AAPT Conference/Workshop,arkland ollege, Cham-paign, llinois.32. Williams, . F. "Business thics:ATrojanHorse?"CaliforniaManagementeview,24 (Summer 982), 14-24.

goals of applied ethics courses

Documents