Professional Ethics Module 2 Notes

Module 2 [PROFESSIONAL ETHICS]
1
Engineering ethics is the field of applied ethics and system of moral principles that apply to the
practice of engineering. The field examines and sets the obligations by engineers to society, to
their clients, and to the profession. As a scholarly discipline, it is closely related to subjects such
as the philosophy of science, the philosophy of engineering, and the ethics of technology.
As engineering rose as a distinct profession during the 19th century, engineers saw themselves as
either independent professional practitioners or technical employees of large enterprises. There
was considerable tension between the two sides as large industrial employers fought to maintain
control of their employees.[1]
In the United States growing professionalism gave rise to the development of four founding
engineering societies: The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (1851), theAmerican
Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE) (1884),[2]
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) (1880), and the American Institute of Mining Engineers(AIME) (1871).[3]
ASCE and
AIEE were more closely identified with the engineer as learned professional, where ASME, to an
extent, and AIME almost entirely, identified with the view that the engineer is a technical
employee.[4]
Even so, at that time ethics was viewed as a personal rather than a broad professional concern.
Turning of the 20th century and turning point
The Boston molasses disaster provided a strong impetus for the establishment of professional
licensing and codes of ethics in the United States.
When the 19th century drew to a close and the 20th century began, there had been series of
significant structural failures, including some spectacular bridge failures, notably theAshtabula
River Railroad Disaster (1876), Tay Bridge Disaster (1879), and the Quebec Bridge
collapse (1907). These had a profound effect on engineers and forced the profession to confront
shortcomings in technical and construction practice, as well as ethical standards.[7]
One response was the development of formal codes of ethics by three of the four founding
engineering societies. AIEE adopted theirs in 1912. ASCE and ASME did so in 1914.[8]
AIME
did not adopt a code of ethics in its history.[4]
Concerns for professional practice and protecting the public highlighted by these bridge failures,
as well as the Boston molasses disaster (1919), provided impetus for another movement that had
been underway for some time: to require formal credentials (Professional licensure in the US.) as
a requirement to practice. This involves meeting some combination of educational, experience,
and testing requirements.[9]

2
Over the following decades most American states and Canadian provinces either required
engineers to be licensed, or passed special legislation reserving title rights to organization of
professional engineers.[10]
The Canadian model is to require all persons working in fields of
engineering that posed a risk to life, health, property, the public welfare and the environment to
be licensed, and all provinces required licensing by the 1950s.
The US model has generally been only to require those practicing independently (i.e. consulting
engineers) to be licensed, while engineers working in industry, education, and sometimes
government need not be licensed. This has perpetuated the split between professional engineers
and those in industry.[11]
Professional societies have adopted generally uniform codes of ethics.
On the other hand technical societies have generally not adopted these, but instead sometimes
offer ethics education and resources to members similar to those of the professional societies.
This is not uniform, and the question of who is to be held in the highest regard: the public or the
employer, is still an open one in industry, and sometimes in professional practice.
Recent developments
William LeMessurier's response to design deficiencies uncovered after construction of the
Citigroup Center is often cited as an example of ethical conduct.
Efforts to promote ethical practice continue. In addition to the professional societies and
chartering organizations efforts with their members, the Canadian Iron Ring and AmericanOrder
of the Engineer trace their roots to the 1907 Quebec Bridge collapse. Both require members to
swear an oath to uphold ethical practice and wear a symbolic ring as a reminder.
In the United States, the National Society of Professional Engineers released in 1946 its Canons
of Ethics for Engineers and Rules of Professional Conduct, which evolved to the current Code of
Ethics, adopted in 1964. These requests ultimately led to the creation of the Board of Ethical
Review in 1954. Ethics cases rarely have easy answers, but the BER's nearly 500 advisory
opinions have helped bring clarity to the ethical issues engineers face daily.[12]
Currently, bribery and political corruption is being addressed very directly by several
professional societies and business groups around the world.[13][14]
However, new issues have
arisen, such as offshoring, sustainable development, and environmental protection, that the
profession is having to consider and address.
General principles[edit]
“ Engineers, in the fulfillment of their
professional duties, shall hold paramount ”

3
the safety, health, and welfare of the public
—National Society of Professional Engineers, [15]
“ A practitioner shall, regard the
practitioner's duty to public welfare as
paramount." ”
—Professional Engineers Ontario, [16]
Codes of engineering ethics identify a specific precedence with respect to the engineer's
consideration for the public, clients, employers, and the profession.
Many engineering professional societies have prepared codes of ethics. Some go back to the
early decades of the twentieth century.[10]
These have been incorporated to a greater or lesser
degree into the regulatory laws of several jurisdictions. While these statements of general
principles served as a guide, engineers still require sound judgment to interpret how the code
would apply to specific circumstances.
The general principles of the codes of ethics are largely similar across the various engineering
societies and chartering authorities of the world,[17]
which further extend the code and publish
specific guidance. The following is an example from theAmerican Society of Civil Engineers:
1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall
strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of
their professional duties.[19]
2. Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence.[19]
3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.[19]
4. Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents
or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest.[19]
5. Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall
not compete unfairly with others.
6. Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and
dignity of the engineering profession and shall act with zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud,
and corruption.[19]
7. Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers, and
shall provide opportunities for the professional development of those engineers under
their supervision.[19]

4
Obligation to society[edit]
The paramount value recognized by engineers is the safety and welfare of the public. As
demonstrated by the following selected excerpts, this is the case for professional engineering
organizations in nearly every jurisdiction and engineering discipline:
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: "We, the members of the IEEE, … do
hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree: 1. to
accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the
public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the
environment;"[20]
Institution of Civil Engineers: "Members of the ICE should always be aware of their
overriding responsibility to the public good. A member‘s obligations to the client can never
override this, and members of the ICE should not enter undertakings which compromise this
responsibility. The ‗public good‘ encompasses care and respect for the environment, and for
humanity‘s cultural, historical and archaeological heritage, as well as the primary
responsibility members have to protect the health and well being of present and future
generations."[21]
Professional Engineers Ontario: "A practitioner shall, regard the practitioner's duty to
public welfare as paramount."[16]
National Society of Professional Engineers: "Engineers, in the fulfillment of their
professional duties, shall: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public."[15]
American Society of Mechanical Engineers: "Engineers shall hold paramount the safety,
health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties."[22]
Institute of Industrial Engineers: "Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor and
dignity of the engineering profession by: 2. Being honest and impartial, and serving with
fidelity the public, their employers and clients."[23]
American Institute of Chemical Engineers: "To achieve these goals, members shall hold
paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and protect the environment in
performance of their professional duties."[24]
American Nuclear Society: "ANS members uphold and advance the integrity and honor of
their professions by using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare
and the environment; being honest and impartial; serving with fidelity the public, their
employers, and their clients; and striving to continuously improve the competence and
prestige of their various professions."[25]

5
Responsibility of engineers
The engineer recognizes that the greatest merit is the work and exercises his profession
committed to serving society, attending to the welfare and progress of the majority. By
transforming nature for the benefit of mankind, the engineer must increase his awareness of the
world as the abode of man, his interest in the universe as a guarantee of overcoming his spirit,
and knowledge of reality to make the world fairer and happier. The engineer should reject any
paper that is intended to harm the general interest, thus avoiding a situation that might be
hazardous or threatening to the environment, life, health, or other rights of human beings. It is an
inescapable duty of the engineer to uphold the prestige of the profession, to ensure its proper
discharge, and to maintain a professional demeanor rooted in ability, honesty, fortitude,
temperance, magnanimity, modesty, honesty, and justice; with the consciousness of individual
well-being subordinate to the social good. The engineer and his employer must ensure the
continuous improvement of his knowledge, particularly of his profession, disseminate his
knowledge, share his experience, provide opportunities for education and training of workers,
provide recognition, moral and material support to the school where he studied, thus returning
the benefits and opportunities he and his employer have received. It is the responsibility of the
engineer to carry out his work efficiently and to support the law. In particular, he must ensure
compliance with the standards of worker protection as provided by the law. As a professional,
the engineer is expected to commit himself to high standards of conduct (NSPE).
Whistle blowing
The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster is used as a case study of whistleblowing and
organizational behavior including groupthink.
Main article: Whistleblower
A basic ethical dilemma is that an engineer has the duty to report to the appropriate authority a
possible risk to others from a client or employer failing to follow the engineer's directions.
According to first principles, this duty overrides the duty to a client and/or employer.[26]
An
engineer may be disciplined, or have their license revoked, even if the failure to report such a
danger does not result in the loss of life or health.
In many cases, this duty can be discharged by advising the client of the consequences in a
forthright matter, and ensuring the client takes the engineer's advice. However, the engineer must
ensure that the remedial steps are taken and, if they are not, the situation must be reported to the
appropriate authority.[28]
In very rare cases, where even a governmental authority may not take
appropriate action, the engineer can only discharge the duty by making the situation
public.[29]
As a result, whistle blowing by professional engineers is not an unusual event, and

6
courts have often sided with engineers in such cases, overruling duties to employers and
confidentiality considerations that otherwise would have prevented the engineer from speaking
out.[30]
Conduct
There are several other ethical issues that engineers may face. Some have to do with technical
practice, but many others have to do with broader considerations of business conduct. These
include:
Relationships with clients, consultants, competitors, and contractors
Ensuring legal compliance by clients, client's contractors, and others
Conflict of interest
Bribery and kickbacks, which also may include:
Gifts, meals, services, and entertainment
Treatment of confidential or proprietary information
Consideration of the employer‘s assets
Outside employment/activities (Moonlighting)
Some engineering societies are addressing environmental protection as a stand-alone question of
ethics.[19]
The field of business ethics often overlaps and informs ethical decision making for engineers.
Ethical codes are adopted by organizations to assist members in understanding the difference
between 'right' and 'wrong' and in applying that understanding to their decisions. An ethical code
generally implies documents at three levels: codes of business ethics,codes of conduct for
employees, and codes of professional practice.
Code of ethics or a code of conduct? (corporate or business ethics)
Many companies use the phrases 'ethical code' and 'code of conduct' interchangeably but it may
be useful to make a distinction. A code of ethics will start by setting out the values that underpin
the code and will describe a company's obligation to its stakeholders. The code is publicly
available and addressed to anyone with an interest in the company's activities and the way it does
business. It will include details of how the company plans to implement its values and vision, as
well as guidance to staff on ethical standards and how to achieve them. However, a code of
conduct is generally addressed to and intended for employees alone. It usually sets out
restrictions on behavior, and will be far more compliance or rules focused than value or principle
focused.

7
Code of practice (professional ethics)
A code of practice is adopted by a profession or by a governmental or non-governmental
organization to regulate that profession. A code of practice may be styled as a code
of professional responsibility, which will discuss difficult issues, difficult decisions that will
often need to be made, and provide a clear account of what behavior is considered "ethical" or
"correct" or "right" in the circumstances. In a membership context, failure to comply with a code
of practice can result in expulsion from the professional organization. In its 2007 International
Good Practice Guidance, Defining and Developing an Effective Code of Conduct for
Organizations, the International Federation of Accountants provided the following working
definition: "Principles, values, standards, or rules of behavior that guide the decisions,
procedures and systems of an organization in a way that (a) contributes to the welfare of its key
stakeholders, and (b) respects the rights of all constituents affected by its operations."
General notes
Ethical codes are often adopted by management, not to promote a particular moral theory, but
rather because they are seen as pragmatic necessities for running an organization in a complex
society in which moral concepts play an important part.
They are distinct from moral codes that may apply to the culture, education, and religion of a
whole society.
Often, acts that violate ethical codes may also violate a law or regulation and can be punishable
at law or by government agency remedies.
Even organizations and communities that may be considered criminal in nature may have ethical
codes of conduct, official or unofficial. Examples could include hacker communities, bands of
thieves, and street gangs.
Eg- Ten commandments, Hippocratic oath, 5 pillars of Islam etc
A code of conduct is a set of rules outlining the responsibilities of or proper practices for an
individual, party or organization. Related concepts include ethical, honor and moral codes, as
well as halachic and religious laws.
The Four Cardinal Virtues in General
The term "virtue" is from Latin and originally meant "strength" or "power". It is based on the
word vir - man.. The ancient Greeks, starting with Homer, praised virtue. The Greek term for
virtue was arete, and the earliest writers applied it particularly to fortitude in battle, and
secondarily to wisdom. Aristotle developed a whole science of the virtues, but he was not

8
inventing the virtues, but drawing from his culture. His description of the virtues is not merely a
reflection of ancient Greek culture. When we study the virtues, we are not putting ancient
customs into a Petri dish, but we are drawing upon the insight of the ancient Greeks into the
human condition in general. The virtues praised by the Greeks are known to all cultures. For
example, you will find many of the same insights in the Old Testament, in particular the book of
Proverbs and the book of Wisdom. You could find the praise of these virtues in every culture,
but Aristotle is outstanding because he took a scientific look at the virtues as part of his study of
human nature.
The four cardinal virtues of Prudence, Justice, Fortitude and Temperance are
interconnected. This means that if you do not possess one of them, all the others are
spoiled, and so you do not possess virtue at all. A few examples. A man might know what
is good, know what he must do to get good results, but if he lacks temperance his
decisions will be swayed by his love of pleasure. Or a man might be willing to risk his
life, yet his actions are not guided by a right purpose. A bank robber who risks his life is
not a prudent man, and so he is not truly a brave man.
The other point about the virtues is that in many cases we cannot say precisely where
virtue lies. The right measure is very difficult to achieve, and it is often different for
different individuals. The idea of "The Golden Mean" is that in our actions we must seek
the right measure and proportion. Excess or defect is a departure from virtue.
The cardinal virtues are a set of four virtues recognized in the writings of Classical
Antiquity and, along with the theological virtues, also in Christian tradition. They consist of:
Prudence also called "wisdom," the ability to judge between actions with regard to
appropriate actions at a given time.
Justice also called "fairness," the perpetual and constant will of rendering to each one his
right.[1]
Temperance also called "restraint," the practice of self-control, abstention, and moderation;
tempering the appetition.
Courage also called "fortitude," forbearance, endurance, and the ability to confront fear,
uncertainty, and intimidation.
Prudence in Particular
Prudence is the most important of the four cardinal virtues. The most important part of prudence
is knowledge. The shortest definition of prudence isrecta ratio agilbilium - right reason about
things to be done. Prudence is not theoretical knowledge, such as philosophical wisdom, but
practical knowledge. Prudence is not concerned only with universal and unchanging truths, but
also with the singular, unique and variable things of daily life. A person can be wise when he
reasons about the meaning and purpose of life, yet because of inexperience he cannot yet make
good decisions in real-life situations. He must know how to apply universal principles in daily

9
situations. A person who possesses prudence cannot easily impart to others his art of making
good decisions. He cannot always even explain his own processes of thought, but after long
practice he has a feeling for what he should do. When we know something in this way, it
called connatural knowledge, and it is important in the moral life. For example, a child who is
brought up in a certain way will understand many things about life without needing to be told.
Thomas Aquinas lists many different components of prudence, but we will limit ourselves to
three:
1. MEMORY - in order to know the meaning of the present, we must have a good
memory of the past.
2. DOCILITY - we must remain open to reality, always willing to learn as situations
change.
3. CLEAR-HEADED DECISIVENESS - prudence is not merely knowing what we
should do, but also making the decision in a timely way.
Although we should learn basic principles of action, we cannot put in a book or code what
should be done in each and every situation. There was an approach to ethics,
called Casuistry that tried to do this, popular among the Jesuits. However, this approach is not
useful in real situations, because it is not possible to anticipate all possible circumstances.
Justice in Particular
Justice is the virtue whereby we give to each person what is due to him, and we do this
consistently, promptly and pleasurably. For a simple example, a just person wants to pay his bills
on time, and he has a feeling of satisfaction when he is able to do so. Justice is the social virtue.
It concerns right relations with others in society. What is just is summed up in a simple
motto: cuique suum - to each his own, but it not always easy to establish what we owe to others.
The simplest obligations are defined by the natural law, and that is based on the natural
inclinations of each man, for example, to stay alive, to be part of society, to grow in knowledge.
We have obligations therefore not to deprive others of life or health. We should not deprive
others of the necessary means to stay alive, even though this may involve complex social issues.
We owe the truth to others, and at least a basic minimum of friendship as members of the same
society. By the same token, others owe these things to us. A further conclusion. If I have a right
to life, I also have the right to use the necessary means to defend my right against an unjust
aggressor. Thomas Higgins (p. 246) also mentions certain goods that we may value as much as
life itself.
4. material goods of great value: things necessary to support life or maintain's our
state in life.
5. personal liberty.
6. chastity
7. integrity of limb.
If there is any progress in Western Civilization, it is not in our technology, because that
can be used for man or against man, and so it is morally neutral, but in increased
knowledge and recognition of human rights.

10
Some things are owed to others not by natural right, but because of a contract. In general,
it is good to keep agreements, and a person who does so is considered to be loyal and
trustworthy. However, this is not always the case. I may have agreed always to stand by
and support a friend, but it would be wrong to do so if by doing so I would be an
accomplice in wrong-doing.
The three divisions of justice according to the parties involved are:
8. legal justice - what the individual owes to society as a whole. Generally speaking,
these are the obligations defined by the law of the land. Exceptions would be
when the law requires someone to do something that is morally wrong, in which
case he must obey the higher law. Over and above the requirements of law, a
citizen should also be civic-minded, willing to participate in the political process
and concerned about the welfare of the community.
9. commutative justice - what one individual owes to another. First, he must respect
the natural rights of other individuals. Second, he may have obligations that arise
because of an agreement or contract. These obligations are usually clear-cut.
10. distributive justice - what the society owes to individuals. In some cases, this is
simple. Equal protection under the law, for example. However, there are complex
situations. For example, the state would have the right under certain extreme
circumstances to expropriate property, in which case it must give fair
compensation. If individuals or groups of individuals have been unjustly deprived
of their rights, some sort of compensation is due to them, but how much and for
how long is difficult to settle. The person who acts in the name of the community
does not act in his own name. If he shows special favor to certain individuals or
groups, he is acting unjustly, and this is called "respect of persons". For this
reason, the person who is in charge of the common good must keep a certain
distance and play his role. One thing that destroys justice is informality. For
example, if a judge or police officer, or for that matter a professor, allows some
people to address him on a first name basis, he risks subverting justice. It does not
matter if such familiarity does not affect his official decisions. It can give scandal
to others. An old proverb says that it is not enough for a thing to be just, it must
also appear just.
There are certain situations where we have debts that we cannot possibly repay. For
example, what we owe to God, to our country, to our parents and teachers. In these cases
we must always remember that any actions we perform fall short. It is not possible to say
to God that we have paid back what we owe, that now we are even, and likewise in the
other cases. In ordinary English we do not have a single term for all of these things, but
we have the word "Piety", which at one time covered all these things. Thomas Aquinas
writes:
A man becomes the debtor of others according to their different excellences and the diverse
benefits received from them. Now, on both counts, God holds the highest place: He is most
excellent and he is the first principle of our existence and our governance. Secondarily, however,
the sources of our being and governance are our parents and country; from whom, and in which,

11
we were born and raised. And so, after God, man is most indebted to his parents and country.
Hence, just as the act of showing reverence to God belongs to religion, so on a secondary level
the showing of reverence to parents and country belongs to piety. Under the reverence of parents
is included the respect for all blood relatives, because they are called such by virtue of their
descent from the same parents. ... Under the reverence of country is understood respect for all
fellow citizens and friends of one's country.
Fortitude
Fortitude is synonymous with courage and bravery. It must be based on justice. The purpose of
fortitude is to remove obstacles to justice. In its extreme form, it is the willingness and readiness
to risk one's life for the sake of that which is just. Justice can be destroyed in two ways. First,
because something pleasant draws us away from what is just, and it is the purpose of temperance
to govern our desire for pleasure. In the second way, we may be unwilling to do what is just
because we face some difficult obstacle. Fortitude enables us to face these difficulties for the
sake of justice. A brave person still has fear. Fear is the natural reaction to anything that
threatens us, and it is necessary in the face of evil. It is unreasonable to say that we can
extinguish all our fears simply by positive thinking. The brave man acts in the face of his
reasonable fear. While the most obvious part of fortitude is to attack evil at the risk of injury or
death, the more important part is to stand firm patiently in the face of threats. Fortitude is
principally in the mind, because the brave man must hold firmly to the thought of some future
good when all he faces in the present is evil. He can and should harness his emotional powers to
cooperate. For that reason, the brave person uses his anger in his actions in order to act or to
stand firm.
In the ancient world, the Stoic philosophers praised virtue and taught that we should develop the
power of our mind to face all difficulties with equanimity. They disparaged emotion, and taught
that the wise man should shut out anger and other strong emotions from his soul. They even
called the passions sicknesses of the soul. Immanuel Kant was following the Stoic philosophers
when he said that the man who acted for the sake of happiness had a "pathological will".
Aristotle and the philosophers who followed him said that the virtuous man will be angry, but
that his anger must be ruled by reason. The brave man must have an intelligent anger.
The vices opposed to fortitude are cowardice as the defect, and fearlessness and recklessness are
both defects. In the coward, fear overcomes his reason and prevents him from doing what he
should do for the sake of justice. The fearless person is not precisely brave, because the brave
person knows the risks he faces, has a respectful fear of them, and acts in the face of his fears.
The reckless person rushes into battle in an untimely way, ready to risk everything even when
this is not the best course.
Perserverance or standing firm is the most necessary part of fortitude, and the most common.
According to the philosophers (Aristotle and Aquinas), perserverance is undermined by a soft
life. The person who indulges in pleasure and always avoids discomfort will be unwilling to put
up with the sadness he must experience if he is to stand firm in difficulty. For this reason, part of
military training and monastic life is to do without many of the superfluous comforts of daily
life. Also, there is an excess of perseverance which is a vice, and this is obstinacy. A stubborn

12
person may "stick to his guns", but he is persevering at something even when he should yield to
others.
The Virtue of Temperance
The virtue of temperance governs our appetites for pleasure. By nature we desire the pleasure
that is suitable to us. Since man by definition is rational, the pleasures that are in accord with
reason are suitable to man. Temperance does not restrain us from the pleasures that are
reasonable, but from those that are contrary to our reason. Temperance does not act against our
natural human inclinations, but works with them. Temperance is opposed to the inclinations of
nature when they are like a beast that is not ruled by reason.
First and foremost, temperance governs the pleasures of the senses, and especially the sense of
touch. These are the greatest and most forceful pleasures, because our sense of touch is closest to
our existence, and it is also involved in reproduction, and so is concerned with the existence of
offspring. The other senses are not as forceful. For example, the glutton is not motivated by the
taste of food, but by the feeling of a full stomach.
The virtue of temperance also requires us to prepare ourselves. There is a place for asceticism in
daily life. I've already mentioned how soft-living can undermine fortititude. Temperance requires
us to train ourselves and prepare ourselves even when we are not faced with an immediate
temptation. For this reason, Thomas Aquinas teaches that fasting is not merely a religious
custom, but it is part of the natural law. All men are required to develop the virtue of temperance
and govern their desire for pleasure by reason, and so all must take the necessary steps to prepare
themselves. The purpose of fasting and other ascetical practices is not to destroy our natural
inclinations, but to become master of them. He even writes that if a man would be committing a
sin if he fasted to the point where he actually lost his sexual desire.
A lack of temperance undermines prudence, and if prudence is destroyed, all the virtues are
undermined. Temperance itself needs to be nurtured, and this is part of the role of culture. If we
are surrounded by images of self-indulgence and appeals to our senses, our reason is
undermined. The mass media deliberately exploit our desires, but there is a saying: no injury is
done if the other party was willing . We can select what we want to watch, and when we watch
television or use the Internet, we can choose to reflect upon what we see or to surrender our
judgment. A culture of temperance will be reflected in the way we speak and act as well.
While temperance primarily concerns tactile pleasures, it also concerns our emotions. Part of
temperance is to control our anger. Part of temperance is to govern our sexual desire, and
temperance in that department is generally called chastity. Chastity is not synonymous with
celibacy, but it means governing our sexual desire in accordance with our state in life.
Temperance also concerns our desire for knowledge. An uncontrolled desire is curiosity,
exemplified as Ulysses who took ten years to return home because he was always seeking new
adventures and experiences. The right measure is called studiosity or studiousness, which is the
disciplined search for the truth. It is also possible for our natural desire for the truth to be dulled
because of a life of comfort and pleasure, and then we may suffer from a dullness of the intellect
for which we are morally responsible.

13
TERMS IN AND TYPES OF ETHICAL THEORY
TELEOLOGICAL - This describes an ethical theory which judges the rightness of an action in
terms of an external goal or purpose. So, according to a teleological theory, consequences always
play some part, be it small or large, in the determination of what one should or should not do.
Not all teleological theories are consequentialist. John Rawls' theory of justice is teleological, but
not consequentialist because it claims that consequences are only part of what must be
considered when determining what policy is morally just. (Rawls)
Benefits - 1. There is room in some theories for good intentions, even if the action didn‘t active
the desired end. 2. Active attempt to connect morality with the ―real‖ world. 3. By allowing for
the consideration of consequences, teleological theories can adapt to different circumstances and
situations. (Also see ―utilitarianism‖)
Problems - Depends on the theory. See ―utilitarianism‖ for an example.
CONSEQUENTIALIST - Under a consequentialist theory, the consequences of an action
determine its moral value. A key question in consequentialist theory is how to measure the moral
worth of the consequences. Consequences can be good, neutral, or evil. Another relevant
question is which consequences count (intended or actual). If only actual consequences count,
then do all consequences count? Consequences can be distinguished by direct/indirect,
individuals/objects affected, influence of complicating factors, etc.
All of these considerations go into shaping the ethical theory. For example, Jeremy Bentham and
John Stuart Mill were both act utilitarians. So they judged individual an action to be good or bad
depending on the actual consequences of that action. Bentham defined good as pleasure and evil
as pain. (Bentham)
Thus when choosing an action, according to Bentham, one should the action
which produces the greatest amount of pleasure compared to pain for all affected. Since pleasure
and pain were the foundation for good and evil, ―all affected‖ would include all sentient things.
J. S. Mill differed from Bentham in that he believed that happiness and unhappiness were the
basis for good and evil. (Mill)
Under his evaluation then, while pleasure and pain were important
considerations, they were only the basic minimum. This sets up an ability for Mill to claim that
consequences to more sentient beings may be more important than those to less sentient beings
and to characterize some pleasures as higher than others.
Benefits - 1. Consequentialism is grounded in actual effect. So, moral action always improves
life on earth (in some manner). Acting morally can improve your lot in life. So, there is an
incentive to act morally even if you do not believe in an afterlife. 2. Consequentialist theories are
often attentive to the particulars of the situation. 3. These theories will allow for exceptions to the
rule when warranted by the outcome. 4. Utilitarianism follows the cause and effect reasoning in
science. It can be proven wrong or right by referring to empirical evidence, instead of a
theoretical ideal. 5. All sentient beings understand pain and pleasure. Thus many have claimed
that utilitarianism is transcultural. 6. On a related note, utilitarianism avoids the charge of
speciesism in ethical theory by using a moral foundation that is shared by other species, thus
requiring their consideration.

14
Problems - 1. Consequences are difficult to predict. Your actions may have good intentions and
a high probability of causing good results. But, if something happens and the consequences are
actually bad, then your action was morally wrong. Also, as the situation involves more people
and alternatives, it becomes more difficult to determine which action would produce the best
consequences. How can we ever know that we actually chose the ―best‖ alternative. There is no
opportunity for comparison of actual cases, just similar ones. 2. "Does the end always justify the
means?" A consequentialist theory would justify many actions that we normally would consider
wrong, if it turned out that the consequences were good. 3. This theory undermines trust in others
and intimate relationships since we can never be sure that the consequences might not justify a
betrayal of trust and in many of these theories, each individual is treated the same regardless of
one's relationship. So, for example, one‘s duty to prevent pain to a stray cat would be equal to
one‘s duty to prevent pain to one‘s own cat.
DEONTOLOGICAL - This type of theory claims that there are features within the actions
themselves which determine whether or not they are right. These features define the extent to
which the actions conform with recognized moral duties. For example, driving while drunk
violates the duty to ―above all do no harm.‖ The duties derive from various sources, such as
religion, biology, psychology, metaphysics, culture, language, etc. Depending on the
deontological theory, these duties may be absolute (no exceptions), prima facie (can only be
overridden by a more important duty), or conditional (only hold under specified circumstances).
Deontological theories do not consider consequences to be important when determining whether
or not an action is ethical. It doesn‘t matter if the drunk driver made it home safely. Driving
drunk was still wrong because the intention to drive drunk was wrong (or to drink alcohol when
one knows one needs to drive).
Immanuel Kant's ethical theory is deontological. He claims that actions are only morally right
when they are done out of duty. He sees moral duties as unchanging laws for human conduct. He
believes that morality is derived from the ability to think rationally, which enables beings to be
free. If one is not free, then one cannot be held responsible. Thus only free individuals are moral
agents and all free individuals are capable of acting out of reason. Kant‘s moral theory is largely
focused on protecting and promoting the free action of rational beings. Three formulations of his
categorical imperative are derived from this moral foundation: (Kant)
Always act out of duty, in accordance with a good will (I.e. One does the right thing
because one recognizes that it is the right thing to do, not because it pleases you to do it
or will promote good consequences.). (pp. 25-26.)
Always act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a Universal Law of
Nature (i.e. Are you willing to allow any other rational being to act on the same reasoning
you used to justify your action?) (p. 49.)
Act as to treat the capacity for rationality, whether in thine own person or in that of any
other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only. (i.e. Never treat a rational
being as a mere means to an end.) (p. 62.)

15
Benefits - 1. Right and wrong actions are easily determined by considering one's duties. In some
cases, these are explicitly spelled out (i.e. religion). However, the use of judgement is usually
necessary to determine which duties apply and how. 2. Unlike utilitarianism, the end does not
justify the means. Deontological theories provide a sound basis for inalienable rights and
inherent value. 3. Since duties do not change, there is a greater sense of security/predictability in
the accepted behavior of others. Right and wrong don‘t vary with the consequences, although
there may be a various according to circumstances (i.e. in the case of conflicting duties). 4. Good
motives are valued, even if the outcome wasn‘t what you expected..
Problems - 1. There is no agreement on a single standard for morality. 2. Ignoring consequences
can cause pain and suffering. 3. The imposition of a specific moral belief system on others has
been a cause of significant harm throughout history. Some deontological theories are not
equipped to respect diverse beliefs. However there are some deontological theories that
incorporate respect for the beliefs of others. There are even some religious-based theories which,
while espousing one true way also respect diverse beliefs amongst individuals (i.e. Buddhist
ethics).
RELATIVISM/SUBJECTIVISM - This type of theory denies that there is any uniquely right
moral theory, standard, or value. Everything is subjective. For example, Jean Paul Sartre claimed
that each individual creates his or her own morality based solely on one's own decisions about
what is valuable. There are no moral standards to turn to that have any more authority than those
that you create. Things (including other people) only have value because you gave them
value.(Sartre)
Benefits - 1. Adjusts for changing factors in society and allows for true multiculturalism. 2. Each
individual is fully responsible for his/her own moral beliefs since he/she chose to create and
value them.
Problems - 1. This leads to social anarchy. Moral theories are tools that are supposed to help
people live together with some degree of harmony and security. But, if you accept that morality
is truly relative, you have to accept that there is no standard by which you can judge the moral
beliefs of others.(ex. The Nazis, KKK, etc.) 2. What is the meaning of morality if it lacks any
standard to judge such claims other than individual choice?
VIRTUE BASED THEORIES - Teleological theories consider the goals of actions.
Deontological theories focus on acting in accordance with moral duties and obligations. Virtue
based theories focus on the character of the person. According to virtue based theories, ethics is
about what sort of person one should strive to become. The qualities that one should develop in
oneself are called virtues (ex. honesty, fairness, kindness, faithfulness, generosity, prudence,
integrity, bravery, etc.).
One should act in ways that develop these virtuous qualities within oneself. For example,
Aristotle claimed that in order to become an honest person, one should tell the
truth. (Aristotle)
Eventually it becomes a habit. Along, the way one learns how to tell the truth
appropriately, without being brutally honest all of the time or lying whenever it is easier to do so.
There are many virtues that one ought to develop through practice over one‘s lifetime. Becoming

16
virtuous is excelling at all of the virtues that make a good human being, health care professional,
etc. It is a learning process that continues throughout your life.
Benefits - 1. This type of theory recognizes that individuals and circumstances are unique. For
example, the virtue of compassion may be expressed by two people in two different ways.
Similarly, running into a burning building may be courageous action for a fire professional but
foolhardy for an untrained individual with no protective equipment. 2. Virtue ethics allows each
individual to use his/her own judgement when making difficult moral decisions, yet recognizes
certain common goals. 3. Mistakes are expected and recognized as learning opportunities.
Problems - 1. Some argue that too much is left to individual judgement, thus opening the door to
bias and prejudice. 2. Similarly, virtues can be interpreted very differently. For example,
consider the many ways that fairness may be interpreted. 3. Virtue ethics depends on modeling
for some of the education. However, one may choose a poor role-model and therefore develop a
false sense of virtue.
Kohlberg’s Theory
Lawrence Kohlberg – an American Psychologist (1958) agreed with Piaget's (1932)
theory of moral development in principle but wanted to develop his ideas further.
He used Piaget‘s story-telling technique to tell people stories involving moral dilemmas. In each
case he presented a choice to be considered for example between the rights of some authority and
the needs of some deserving individual who is being unfairly treated.
One of the best known of Kohlberg‘s (1958) stories concerns a man called Heinz who lived
somewhere in Europe.
Heinz’s wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said a new drug might save
her. The drug had been discovered by a local chemist and the Heinz tried desperately to buy
some, but the chemist was charging ten times the money it cost to make the drug and this was
much more than the Heinz could afford.
Heinz could only raise half the money, even after help from family and friends. He explained
to the chemist that his wife was dying and asked if he could have the drug cheaper or pay the
rest of the money later. The chemist refused saying that he had discovered the drug and was
going to make money from it. The husband was desperate to save his wife, so later that night
he broke into the chemist’s and stole the drug.

17
Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as:
1. Should Heinz have stolen the drug?
2. Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife?
3. What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference?
4. Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman died?
By studying the answers from children of different ages to these questions Kohlberg hoped to
discover the ways in which moral reasoning changed as people grew. The sample comprised 72
Chicago boys aged 10–16 years, 58 of whom were followed up at three-yearly intervals for 20
years (Kohlberg, 1984).
Kohlberg told several dilemma stories and asked many such questions to discover how people
reasoned about moral issues. He identified three distinct levels of moral reasoning each with two
sub stages. People can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces
the reasoning typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves all the stages.
Kohlberg Stages of Moral Development
Level 1 -Pre-conventional morality
At the pre-conventional level (most nine-year-olds and younger, some over nine), we don‘t have
a personal code of morality. Instead, our moral code is shaped by the standards of adults and the
consequences of following or breaking their rules.
Authority is outside the individual and reasoning is based on the physical consequences of
actions.
• Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual is good in order to
avoid being punished. If a person is punished they must have done wrong.
• Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage children recognize that there is not just
one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different
viewpoints.
Level 2 - Conventional morality
At the conventional level (most adolescents and adults), we begin to internalise the moral
standards of valued adult role models.

18
Authority is internalized but not questioned and reasoning is based on the norms of the group to
which the person belongs.
• Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. The child/individual is good in order to be seen
as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers are related to the approval of others.
• Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. The child/individual becomes aware of the wider
rules of society so judgments concern obeying rules in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt.
Level 3 -Post-conventional morality
Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on
individual rights and justice (10–15% of adults, not before mid-30s).
• Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes aware that
while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will
work against the interest of particular individuals. The issues are not always clear cut. For
example, in Heinz‘s dilemma the protection of life is more important than breaking the law
against stealing.
• Stage 6: Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of moral
guidelines which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone. E.g. human
rights, justice and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles even if
it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of
disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people reached this stage.
Critical Evaluation
Problems with Kohlberg's Methods
1. The dilemmas are artificial (i.e. they lack ecological validity)
Most of the dilemmas are unfamiliar to most people (Rosen, 1980). For example it is all very
well in the Heinz dilemma asking subjects whether Heinz should steal the drug to save his wife.
However Kohlberg‘s subjects were aged between 7 and 16. They have never been married, and
never been placed in a situation remotely like the one in the story. How should they know
whether Heinz should steal the drug?

19
2. The sample is biased
According to Gilligan (1977), because Kohlberg‘s theory was based on an all-male sample, the
stages reflect a male definition of morality (it‘s androcentric). Men‘s morality is based on
abstract principles of law and justice, while women‘s is based on principles of compassion and
care.
Further, the gender bias issue raised by Gilligan is a reminded of the significant gender debate
still present in psychology, which when ignored, can have a large impact on results obtained
through psychological research.
2. The dilemmas are hypothetical (i.e. they are not real)
In a real situation what course of action a person takes will have real consequences – and
sometimes very unpleasant ones for themselves. Would subjects reason in the same way if they
were placed in a real situation? We just don‘t know.
The fact that Kohlberg‘s theory is heavily dependent on an individual‘s response to an artificial
dilemma brings question to the validity of the results obtained through this research. People
may respond very differently to real life situations that they find themselves in than they do to an
artificial dilemma presented to them in the comfort of a research environment.
3. Poor research design
The way in which Kohlberg carried out his research when constructing this theory may not have
been the best way to test whether all children follow the same sequence of stage progression. His
research was cross-sectional, meaning that he interviewed children of different ages to see what
level of moral development they were at.
A better way to see if all children follow the same order through the stages would have been to
carry out longitudinal research on the same children.
However, longitudinal research on Kohlberg‘s theory has since been carried out by Colby et al.
(1983) who tested 58 male participants of Kohlberg‘s original study. She tested them 6 times in
the span of 27 years and found support for Kohlberg‘s original conclusion, that we all pass
through the stages of moral development in the same order.
Problems with Kohlberg's Theory
1. Are their distinct stages to moral development?

20
Kohlberg claims that there are but the evidence does not always support this conclusion. For
example a person who justified a decision on the basis of principled reasoning in one situation
(post conventional morality stage 5 or 6) would frequently fall back on conventional reasoning
(stage 3 or 4) in another story. In practice it seems that reasoning about right and wrong depends
more upon the situation than upon general rules.
What is more individuals do not always progress through the stages and Rest (1979) found that
one in fourteen actually slipped backwards. The evidence for distinct stages to moral
development looks very weak and some would argue that behind the theory is a culturally biased
belief in the superiority of American values over those of other cultures and societies.
2. Does moral judgement match moral behaviour?
Kohlberg never claimed that there would be a one to one correspondence between thinking and
acting (what we say and what we do) but he does suggest that the two are linked. However Bee
(1994) suggest that we also need to take account of:
a) habits that people have developed over time.
b) whether people see situations as demanding their participation.
c) the costs and benefits of behaving in a particular way.
d) competing motive such as peer pressure self interest and so on.
Overall Bee points out that moral behaviour is only partly a question of moral reasoning. It is
also to do with social factors.
3. Is justice the most fundamental moral principle?
This is Kohlberg‘s view. However Gilligan (1977) suggests that the principle of caring for others
is equally important. Furthermore Kohlberg claims that the moral reasoning of males is often in
advance of that of females.
Girls are often found to be at stage 3 in Kohlberg‘s system (good boy-nice girl orientation)
whereas boys are more often found to be at stage 4 (Law and Order orientation). Gilligan replies:

21
―the very traits that have traditionally defined the goodness of women, their care for and
sensitivity to the needs of others, are those that mark them out as deficient in moral
development.‖
In other words Gilligan is claiming that there is a sex bias in Kohlberg‘s theory. He neglects the
feminine voice of compassion, love and non-violence, which is associated with the socialisation
of girls.
Gilligan reached the conclusion that Kohlberg‘s theory did not account for the fact that women
approach moral problems from an ‗ethics of care‘, rather than an ‗ethics of justice‘ perspective,
which challenges some of the fundamental assumptions of Kohlberg‘s theory.
CAROL GILLIGAN
Carol Gilligan was born on November 28, 1936, in New York City. She has received her
doctorate degree in social psychology from Harvard University in 1964m and began teaching at
Harvard in 1967. Then in 1970 she became a research assistant for the great theorist of moral
development, Lawrence Kohlberg.
Eventually Gilligan became independent and began to criticize some of Kohlberg' s work. Her
opinions were presented in her famous book, " In a different Voice: Psychological Theory and
Women ' s Development " which was published in 1982. She felt that Kohlberg only studied "
privileged, white men and boys. " Gilligan said that this caused a biased opinion against women.
She felt that , in Kohlberg ' s stage theory of moral development, the male view of individual
rights and rules was considered a higher stage than women's point of view of development in
terms of its caring effect on human relationships. " Gilligan ' s goal is was to prove that women
are not " moral midgets " , she was going against many psychological opinions. Another famous
theorist, Freud thought women ' s moral sense was stunted because they stayed attached to their
mothers. Another great theorist , Erik Erickson , thought the tasks of development were
separation from mother and the family , If women did not succeed in this scale, then they were
obviously lacking. Therefore Gilligan ' s goal was a good cause.
Gilligans Theory
Her theory is divided into three stages of moral development beginning from " selfish , to social
or conventional morality , and finally to post conventional or principled morality . " Women
must learn to deal to their own interests and to the interests of others . She thinks that women
hesitate to judge because they see the complexities of relationships.

22
Pre Conventional
-Person only cares for themselves in order to ensure survival
-This is how everyone is as children
In this transitional phase, the person 's attitude is considered selfish, and the person sees the
connection between themselves and others.
Conventional
-Responsibility
-More care shown for other people.
-Gilligan says this is shown in the role of Mother & Wife
-Situation sometimes carries on to ignoring needs of self.
In this transitional phase, tensions between responsibility of caring for others and caring for self
are faced.
Post Conventional
-Aceeptance of the principle of care for self and others is shown.
-Some people never reach this level.
Is She Wrong?
There has been some criticism of Gilligan's work and by Christina Hoff Sommers , PhD . She
says that Gilligan does not have data for her research. She says Gilligan used unreliable
evidence, that researchers have not been able to duplicate her work, and that the samples used
were too small. She feels strongly that promoting an anti-male agenda hurts both males and
females. Gilligan says that her work has been published in articles and journals and Sommer ' s
points are inaccurate.
Gilligan' s Theory and Society
Gilligan's ideas are against the struggle of women against our society's idea of their " gender-
determined " role. According to Gilligan , women can gain personal independence after they
forget about the idea that their proper role is to overcome their interests to the interests of their
husbands, children, or other people they care about. Gilligan says that in our society women

23
really like to help others, however they should care just as much about themselves as the do
about others.
Gilligan's Theory and Education
Carol Gilligan's theory helps both men and women in seeing eachother in a different perspective.
In terms of education everyone should focus on it and everyone's need for education is
important. A person should not put the needs of others in front of their own, especially in the
case of education
Gilligan's Theory and the Workplace
A person could undergo this process of "the ethic of care" when entering a new job. The
conventional stage is shown when the job is just acuired, and a good impression is trying to be
made. This is followed by the conventional stage, which can be seen after developing
relationships with colleagues. This might be followed by the post conventional stage when care
for oneself and another colleague might be equal. (Not everyone reaches the post conventional
stage)
Ten Virtues for the Modern Age:
1. Resilience. Keeping going even when things are looking dark; accepting that reversals are
normal; remembering that human nature is, in the end, tough. Not frightening others with your
fears.
2. Empathy. The capacity to connect imaginatively with the sufferings and unique experiences of
another person. The courage to become someone else and look back at yourself with honesty.
3. Patience. We lose our temper because we believe that things should be perfect. We've grown
so good in some areas (putting men on the moon etc.), we're ever less able to deal with things
that still insist on going wrong; like traffic, government, other people... We should grow calmer
and more forgiving by getting more realistic about how things actually tend to go.
4. Sacrifice. We‘re hardwired to seek our own advantage but also have a miraculous ability, very
occasionally, to forego our own satisfactions in the name of someone or something else. We
won't ever manage to raise a family, love someone else or save the planet if we don't keep up
with the art of sacrifice.
5. Politeness. Politeness has a bad name. We often assume it's about being 'fake' (which is meant
to be bad) as opposed to 'really ourselves' (which is meant to be good). However, given what
we're really like deep down, we should spare others too much exposure to our deeper selves. We
need to learn manners, which aren‘t evil - they are the necessary internal rules of civilisation.
Politeness is very linked to tolerance, the capacity to live alongside people whom one will never
agree with, but at the same time, can‘t avoid.
6. Humour. Seeing the funny sides of situations and of oneself doesn't sound very serious, but it
is integral to wisdom, because it's a sign that one is able to put a benevolent finger on the gap
between what we want to happen and what life can actually provide; what we dream of being
and what we actually are, what we hope other people will be like and what they are actually like.

24
Like anger, humour springs from disappointment, but it's disappointment optimally channelled.
It's one of the best things we can do with our sadness.
7. Self-awareness. To know oneself is to try not to blame others for one's troubles and moods; to
have a sense of what's going on inside oneself, and what actually belongs to the world.
8. Forgiveness. Forgiveness means a long memory of all the times when we wouldn't have got
through life without someone cutting us some slack. It's recognising that living with others isn't
possible without excusing errors.
9. Hope. The way the world is now is only a pale shadow of what it could one day be. We're still
only at the beginning of history. As you get older, despair becomes far easier, almost reflex
(whereas in adolescence, it was still cool and adventurous). Pessimism isn't necessarily deep, nor
optimism shallow.
10. Confidence. The greatest projects and schemes die for no grander reasons than that we don't
dare. Confidence isn't arrogance, it's based on a constant awareness of how short life is and how
little we ultimately lose from risking everything.
Moral development focuses on the emergence, change, and understanding of morality from
infancy through adulthood. In the field of moral development, morality is defined as principles
for how individuals ought to treat one another, with respect to justice, others‘ welfare, and rights.
In order to investigate how individuals understand morality, it is essential to measure their
beliefs, emotions, attitudes, and behaviors that contribute to moral understanding. The field of
moral development studies the role of peers and parents in facilitating moral development, the
role of conscience and values, socialization and cultural influences, empathy and altruism, and
positive development. The interest in morality spans many disciplines
(e.g., philosophy, economics,biology, and political science) and specializations within
psychology (e.g., social, cognitive, and cultural). Moral developmental psychology research
focuses on questions of origins and change in morality across the lifespan.
Habit formation
The habits of highly successful people allow them to consistently perform behaviors that breed
success. Everything from eating well to responsible spending to task completion and beyond
requires habits that make such behaviors part of our daily life.Michael Jordan spent his off
seasons taking hundreds of jump shots a day. Cy Young award-winning Phillies pitcher Roy
Halladay routinely does a 90-minute workout before practices. The young Venus and Serena
Williams would wake up at 6:00 am to hit tennis balls before school. Highly successful people
have learned to develop good habits, and it takes discipline, courage and hard work on a daily
basis to keep those habits in place. It makes perfect sense to adopt habits that will facilitate
success, yet, why are some so difficult to adopt?

25
The 3 phases of habit formation:
Phase 1: THE HONEYMOON
This phase of habit formation is characterized by the feeling of ―this is easy.‖ As all married
people will tell you, at some point even the greatest honeymoon must end. The honeymoon
phase is usually the result of something inspiring. For example, a person attends a highly
motivational conference, and for the first few days after the conference the individual is making
positive changes in his or her life.
Phase 2: THE FIGHT THRU
Inspiration fades and reality sets in. A person finds himself struggling with the positive habit
completion and old habits seem to be right around the corner. The key to moving to the third
phase of habit formation is to win 2 or 3 ―fight thru‘s.‖ This is critical. To win the fight thru, use
the following techniques:
1. RECOGNIZE: Recognition is essential for winning the fight thru. When you have entered the
fight through, simply say to yourself, ―I have entered the fight thru, and I need to win a few to
move past this.‖ Winning each fight thru will make it easier to win the next. Conversely, when
you choose to lose a fight thru, you make it easier to lose the next one.
2. ASK 2 QUESTIONS: “How will I feel if I do this?” and“How will I feel if I don’t do
this?” Bring EMOTION into the equation. Let yourself feel the positive in winning the fight
thru and the negative in losing.
3. LIFE PROJECTION: If the above 2 techniques haven‘t moved you to action, then imagine in
great detail how your life will be in 5 years if you do not begin making changes. Be totally
honest with yourself, and allow yourself to feel what life will be like if the changes are not
made.
Phase 3: SECOND NATURE
Entering second nature is often described by feelings of ―getting in the groove.‖ Once in second
nature, the following are 3 common interruptions that will send a person back to the fight thru:
1. THE DISCOURAGEMENT MONSTER: An individual allows negative results discourage
him or her into thinking, “This isn’t working, and there is nothing I can do.”

26
2. DISRUPTIONS: An individual experiences significant change to his or her current pattern
(e.g., vacations, holidays, illness, weekends).
3. SEDUCTION OF SUCCESS: An individual begins to focus on positive results and begins to
think, “I’m the special one. I have finally figured out how to have great results with not so
great process.”
If a person experiences an interruption that sends him or her back to the fight thru, winning 2 or
3 fight thru‘s will bring him or her back to second nature.
Most people want positive habits to be as easy as brushing their teeth. HELLO…LET‘S BE
ADULTS HERE…being great isn‘t easy. In fact greatness requires sacrifice. It requires doing
things that others won‘t or can‘t do. GREAT HABITS ARE FORMED DAILY. Truth be told,
good habits require consistent commitment. Highly successful people have learned to develop
good habits. Make the commitment to make it past the fight thru, no matter how many times you
go back to it, to reach new levels of success

Professional Ethics Module 2 Notes

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Professional Ethics Module 2 Notes (20)

More from Bella Meraki (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Professional Ethics Module 2 Notes