In this section we describe two processes for the evaluation of ethical cases: the more general due process, and the SEES method which is a systematic method for evaluating cases presented in class.

Due process

A procedure for the resolution of moral, ethical, or legal controversies that is fair to all parties is called due process. It is not a single procedure but rather a principle to inform how ethical cases and controversies can be decided fairly. Violations of due process could lead to dismissal of cases. Another example, evidence unfairly obtained, even if probative, are not allowed in most ethical and legal controversies.

Due process defines when a controversy ends. For example, an ethical or legal case ends with the imposition of a punishment. Thus a teacher who catches a student cheating and then gives a failing grade for that exam has closed the case.

The SEES method

This course uses the case method, a form of simulation to practice the art of ethical evaluation.

The class is comprised of groups of three, each assigned at least two cases in the beginning of the semester; these cases appear in the reference textbooks.

A typical method in evaluating ethical cases is the SEES method.

1. Situation. Describe the facts of the case, the actors, what they did, time, place. Define what are facts and distinguish them from assumptions we may need to make. In this part we are careful to break the case into parts knowing that most ethical cases involve many issues and actions, which can be arranged in importance.
2. Explanation. We describe why people who do certain actions may be considered to have acted ethically or not. We can explain why people in the case acted the way they did.
3. Evaluate. We look at the actions, intentions, circumstances and then compare them with laws, guidelines, and moral principles to make a judgement of whether the actions are ethical or not, and how gravely. We will also recommend courses of action, not limited to meting out punishment.
4. Strategic impact. We discuss what the implications will be for the organization by a decision. We may ask, what other practices might be considered unethical if we decide that the actions in this case are unethical. What are practices an organization can put into place moving forward.

The Professional Ethicist’s Way of Thinking

Suppose we say that person A plagiarized a part of his essay, and that we have proof it was directly lifted without attribution from a source we can name. If I ask person B: “Did A act unethically?”

Person B may answer “Yes, of course.” He may be right. But that is not what I call the Professional Way of Thinking.

If Person B had the Professional Way of Thinking, she would say something like this: “Perhaps, but if we want to move forward fairly and effectively, let’s look at the actions and the issues involved.”

In other words, the Professional Way of Thinking considers that multiple interpretations are possible. This is a skill we recognize when we come up with alternate hypothesis. Again the Professional Way of Thinking illustrates an extension of the scientific method into the ethical sphere.

That there is such a way of thinking does not imply it is the only way or the correct way of thinking. Considering alternate explanations and breaking up a case into issues is a slow way of acting. In an emergency, such as whether to shoot a person in self defense, one may not have time to make ethical decisions. In such a case, shoot first and ask questions later.

But killing in self defense is still homicide; one must prove one acted in self defense. How? Fire a second shot at the ceiling; make sure the investigators find the bullet in the ceiling, that’s your proof. It is very hard to impossible to prove which of two was the warning shot.

In the next sections we will be commenting on Cases taken up in class. First up is a case of potentially inappropriate disclosure of research information.