Skip to content

café Annalisa

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size    Default color brown color green color red color blue color
café Annalisa  the meeting place for discussions about how Annalisa could help decide... choose... judge... select...    the best...   or the most

 

You are here: 
Skip to content
Ethics PDF Print E-mail

How can we resolve conflicts between competing ethical principles?
Ido Millet outlined how the Analytic Hierarchy Process could be used to facilitate ethical discussions and decisions, using the example of whether or not to lie to your friend about her new dress
TipIdo Millet (1998) "Ethical decision making using the Analytic Hierarchy Process" Journal of Business Ethics 17 : 1197-1204
Attributes

  • Consequentialist - Egoism
  • Consequentialist - Minimise Harm
  • Consistency
  • Duty - Be True
  • Duty - Right to Know
Options
  • Lie
  • Not Lie
Weightings
The first snapshot below reproduces the numbers in his example with two Consequentialist attributes (Egoism and Min-Harm) weighted at 45%, two Duty attributes (Be True and Right to Know) weighted at 35% and Consistency weighted at 20%. N.B. The Ratings are in their idealised ratio form.
Scores
The optimal choice is flipped from Not Lie to Lie if the Consequentialist weight is raised to 65%, as in the second snapshot
 

alt file here

Click image to open!
Click image to open!
 

 

 
[ Back ]