IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF ETHICAL DILEMMAS

FROM KIDDER

By
JAMES CROWSON
Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
The University of Oklahoma
Norman, OK
1998
Master of Public Administration
The University of Oklahoma
Norman, OK
2010

Submitted to the Faculty of the

Administration of Aviation Administrations
of the Oklahoma State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
March 16, 2012

IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF ETHICAL DILEMMAS FROM KIDDER

Introduction
How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living is Rushworth
M. Kidders (1995) message to enable good people to make tough ethical choices. Ultimately,
what is at stake here is whether a reader understands that when two or more competing right
decision-making options are available, i.e., a right vs. right dilemma, good people tend to struggle
making the decision. In short, to help decision-makers, this book communicates thinking models
to identify, comprehend, and resolve ones right vs. right dilemmas. Following is an introduction
of these concepts.
Right vs. right is a central concept that Kidder explains is at the heart of our toughest choices in
life (p. 5). Simply stated, right vs. right is a situation where two choices are equally plausible but
tension exists in a person because they hold two conflict core values (p. 110). Probably one of the
most useful examples in the book to explain this is the story about the librarian, the citizen who
requests information on rape laws, and the police officer (p. 2). This is a dilemma if a decider
does not fall on one side of the issue. If a person is concerned about the safety of women in the
community, then they may give the phone number to the police officer but risk their job at the
same time, which is another dilemma. Or else, they decide to tell the police officer to do his own
investigative work and get a search warrant to query the phone records of the library, which is
siding on the side of individual rights of citizens against intrusion by the state. In short, it is an

effective story to introduce the right vs. right dilemma scenario. Other examples of right vs. right
dilemmas include:
-

It is right to save money for retirement; yet it is also right to spend money to go on

vacation;
It is right for citizens to request information about laws regarding rape; yet it is also right

for state authorities to protect the community against perpetrators of rape (p. 2);
It is right to save the life a person who is drowning; yet it is also right for someone who

cannot swim to not risk their life trying to save the drowning person;
It is right to continue the United States tough stance on anti-terrorism; yet it is also right
to not profile natural born American citizens.

Kidder unpacks his right vs. right argument leading us through his book with compelling
principles, paradigms, and checkpoints. Here is a short list of concepts and examples:
1. The Chernobyl disaster and the likelihood of another one in the future (pp. 19-25); Bath
Iron Works pricing dispute (pp. 25-27); a ten year old boy who finds a wallet (pp. 46-47,
49); Floyd the ad executive (pp. 51-55); a Japanese philanthropist (pp. 57-58); and
Peters dilemma with Camille the female lab scientist (pp. 106-113);
2. Attitudes about ethics of diverse American groups (pp. 37-47);
3. The four dilemma paradigms (pp. 105-148) and the three principles for resolving
dilemmas (pp. 149-174);
4. The Potter Box (pp. 144-145);
5. The nine checkpoints for ethical decision-making (pp. 178-190);
6. Plus other concepts and examples such as the ethics continuum; moral relativism and
Kidders case against it (pp. 86-93); core values (pp. 70-104); and ethics as seen through
a lens of Newtonian physics (pp. 88-89, 143, 145).
The four dilemma paradigms assist a person identify their particular set of core values that clash
or conflict so that they can bring themselves and the situation to a resolution or movement toward
such (p. 113). The justice vs. mercy paradigm connotes a situation where the law or some other
understood requirement stands in stark contrast with compassion or respect for individual rights.
2

An example is when homeless people are arrested for sleeping in a privately owned alley when
they have nowhere else to go. The short-term vs. long-term paradigm is a situation of the present
vs. the future. An example is should a company expand its sales department now to exploit a
newly emerging market space or remain in their current market space and maintain steady
growth? The individual vs. community paradigm is me vs. them or person vs. the people. An
example is when a single person feels that their rights have been trampled by the state or a sizable
company. This could be referred to as David vs. Goliath. The truth vs. loyalty paradigm is when
ought vs. commitment. An example of this is when a person compromises their integrity to
protect a person in their circle of influence. It can be as simple as not reporting someone for
taking home a company pen or notepad to someone embezzling money from a corporate bank
account (p. 6-11, 109).
Kidder also provides data that are useful in understanding the attitudes of a sampling of American
students and CEOs. The data reveal that ninety-seven percent of college seniors surveyed in 2002
indicated that they are prepared to make ethical decisions as they transition into adulthood.
Ninety-four percent of middle and high school students indicated that truth and honesty are
essential values professionally. Finally, sixty-two percent of CEOs indicated that they want to be
remembered for integrity instead of having run a good company (p. 37-38).
Kidder also presents data which show how the word ethics has increased in usage in the media.
First, new stories about ethics in the NY Times grew 400 percent from 1969 1989. Next, from
early 1990 2000, there were just short of 2,000 articles relating to ethics. Last and most
revealing, by 2008, the number leaped to more than 2,100 articles in that year alone. These data
showcase at a minimum the issues the American public wrestled with at that time. Recall Enron,
WorldCom, and others embroiled themselves in scandals. When it comes to the issue of ethics,
most everyone will readily agree that the word and the accompanying values and duties are
essential (p. 36).
3

Next, here is a convenient example that shows how values influence ethical choices. Kidder
relates the experience of a ten year old boy who finds a wallet with money and credit cards. Being
a conscientious young boy, he takes it to school expecting that his teachers will provide him
guidance. However, the teachers inform him that they cannot tell him what to do. Instead, the boy
would have to decide what decision to make by himself. Their reasoning was that they could not
impose their values upon the young child. When a group of college students evaluated this
situation, they agreed with the teachers (p. 46-47). This writer felt that the solution to the boys
issue is clear and not a dilemma of values. A teacher ought to have called directory assistance
for a phone number to inform the owner a wallet had been found. However, opponents may argue
then that the writers values come into play and are fair game for debate.
Nevertheless, to aid us in resolving such dilemmas, Kidder presents three principles including
ends-based thinking, rules-based thinking, and care-based thinking. First, ends-based thinking is
utilitarianism or making sure that the greatest good is provided to the greatest number of people.
An important point to understand about this method for resolving ethical dilemmas is that it
provides a framework for analyzing likely outcomes and picking the one that maximizes benefits
(p. 12). Next, rules-based thinking is suggests that a choice made should be a standard choice for
everyone else so that they too can maximize benefits. This model emphasizes duty or obligation
to rules and/or procedures over end results (p. 12-13). Last, care-based thinking is has to do with
loving others and doing what one thinks is right for them. This is also known as the Golden Rule.
Our librarian above who had a dilemma of whether to protect the identity of the caller vs.
providing that information to the police officer may seek to resolve her dilemma using the Golden
Rule. What if the tables were turned and her husband was doing a research paper for school? She
might protect the man because that is what she would want another person to do for her family (p.
13).

Kidders nine checkpoints provide a fitting conclusion. Because we may not fully comprehend
the ramifications (p. 179) of the ethical dilemmas which complicate our decision-making ability,
these checkpoints can assist a decision-maker to create order out of chaos and provide a map to
the resolution. They are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Recognize that there is a moral issue;

Determine the actor;
Gather the relevant facts;
Test for right versus wrong issues;
Test for right versus right paradigms;
Apply the resolution principles;
Investigate the trilemma options;
Make the decision;
Revisit and reflect on the decision (p. 184).

REFERENCES

Kidder, R. M. (2009). How good people make tough choices: Resolving the dilemmas of
ethical living. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.